Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/discussionoflatiOOelmericJ^^* 


^ — -«-^^y^'-£/ 


A  DISCUSSION 


OF 


THE  LATIN  PROHIBITIVE, 


BASED  UPON  A  COMPLETE  COLLECTION  OF  THE  INSTANCES 

FROM  THE  EARLIEST  TIMES  TO  THE  END  OF 

THE  AUGUSTAN  PERIOD. 


By  H.  C.  ELMER 


Assistant  Professor  of  Latin  in  Cornell  University. 


Reprinted  from  the  American  Journal  of  Pliilology,  Vol.  XV,  2  and  3. 


I  T  H  A  G  A  ,    N .  Y  . 
1894. 


A  DISCUSSION 


OF 


THE  LATIN  PROHIBITIVE, 


BASED  UPON  A  COMPLETE  COLLECTION  OF  THE  INSTANCES 

FROM  THE  EARLIEST  TIMES  TO  THE  END  OF 

THE  AUGUSTAN  PERIOD. 


By  H.  C.  ELMER, 

Assistant  Professor  of  Latin  in  Cornell  University. 


Reprinted  from  the  American  Journal  of  Philology,  Vol.  XV,  2  and  3. 


ITHACA,    N.  Y, 
1894. 


•  •    •  •  "• 

•••  •  •• 


TUK  FRIEDENWALD  CO.,  PKINTERS, 
BALTIMORE,  MD. 


fA 
EH 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Part  I. 

(expressions  the  prohibitory  character  of  which  is  beyond 
question.) 

PAGS 

Inaccuracies  of  Latin  grammars  in  the  treatment  of  certain  uses  of 

the  perfect  subjunctive 1-2 

Ne  with  the  perfect  subjunctive  in  prohibition  almost  unknown  to 

the  best  prose 2-3,  16-17 

Common  distinction  between  present  and  perfect  tenses  in  prohibi- 
tions misleading 3-6 

The  true  distinction  between  these  tenses 6-8 

List  of  the  instances  of  ne  with  the  perfect  subjunctive  in  Plautus 

and  Terence 8-10 

List  of  the  instances  of  cave  with  the  perfect  subjunctive  in  Plautus 

and  Terence 10 

List  of  the  instances  of  ne  with  the  present  subjunctive  in  Plautus 

and  Terence 10-14 

List  of  the  instances  of  cave  with  the  present  subjunctive  in  Plautus 

and  Terence 14 

List  of  the  instances  of  noli  with  the  infinitive  in  Plautus  and  Terence         20 

List  of  the  instances  of  ne  with  the  imperative  in  Plautus  and  Terence         1 5 

Remarkable  differences  between  the  tenses  in  the  character  of  the 
verbs  used  (especially  up  to  the  end  of  the  Augustan  period),  14-16,  20-21 

Forms  of  prohibition  in  the  Ciceronian  period  and  the  distinctions 
between  them,  based  upon  a  complete  collection  of  instances    .    .     16-21 

Part  II. 
(expressions  admitting  of  more  than  one  interpretation.) 

Collection  of  the  instances  of  neque  [nee)  with  the  perfect  subjunctive 

ffom  the  earliest  times  to  the  end  of  the  Augustan  period  ....    22-24 

Proof  that  none  of  those  in  Ciceronian  prose  are  volitive  in  character,    25-45 

Many  of  the  supposed  instances  of  the  volitive  use  of  neque  are 
really  result  clauses 29-35 

In  others,  the  negative  spends  its  force  upon  the  idea  of  a  single 

word,  while  that  of  the  verb  itself  is  positive 35-36 


6JI2541 


In  the  rest  the  subjunctive  belongs  to  the  so-called  potential  use  of 
the  subjunctive  ("nor  would  you,"  etc.)  which  sometimes  ap- 
proaches the  idea  of  obligation  or  propriety  (*'  nor  should  you," 
etc.).  Probability  that  the  subjunctive  in  all  expressions  of 
obligation  or  propriety  ("why  should  you  ?  ",  "  nor  should  you," 

etc.)  is  not,  as  is  commonly  supposed,  of  volitive  origin 36-45 

Instances  of  i'z//%//(«/7)  with  the  perfect  subjunctive 45 

Instances  of  nunquam,  ne — qiiidem^  nullus  with  the  perfect  sub- 
junctive     .    46-47 

Appendix. 

How  far  the  principles  laid  down  in  this  paper  will  hold  for  Silver 
Latin 47-51 


THE  LATIN  PROHIBITIVE. 

Part  I. 

This  paper  owes  its  origin  to  a  feeling  the  writer  has  long  had 
that  certain  uses  of  the  Latin  perfect  subjunctive  are  very  inade- 
quately and,  in  some  particulars,  very  inaccurately  treated  in 
Latin  grammars.  It  is  customary,  for  instance,  in  dealing  with 
ne  and  the  2d  person  subjunctive  in  prohibitions,  to  dismiss  the 
subject  with  the  statement  that  when  the  prohibition  is  addressed 
to  no  definite  person,  the  present  tense  is  used;  otherwise  the 
perfect.  All  attempts — like  Gildersleeve's,^  for  instance — to  make 
any  further  distinction  between  the  tenses  have  been  frowned 
down.  Scholars  in  general  have  been  inclined  to  accept  the 
views  of  Madvig  (Opusc.  acad.  altera,  p.  105)^  and  of  Weissen- 
born  (on  Livy  21,  44,  6)  as  final,  viz.  that  the  perfect  is  used, 
when  a  definite  person  is  addressed,  only  because  the  present 
cannot  be  used.  The  reason  for  this  remarkable  state  of  things 
they  do  not  trouble  themselves  to  seek.  Even  Schmalz,  in  the 
second  edition  of  his  Lat.  Synt.,  §31,  would  have  it  understood 
that  the  perfect  tense  in  this  use  has  no  special  significance. 
Such  ignoring  of  all  distinction  between  tenses  is  common  also 
in  other  constructions,  e.  g.  in  the  so-called  potential  subjunctive. 

^  Latin  Grammar,  §266,  Rem.  2,  which  is,  as  far  as  it  goes,  in  perfect  harmony 
with  the  results  reached  in  this  paper. 

''•  Madvig  is  inexcusably  careless  in  some  of  his  statements  in  this  connec- 
tion. On  p.  105,  e.  g.,  he  says  that  ne  with  the  present  is  apud  ipsos  comicos 
rarissimum  et  paene  inusitatum.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  extremely  common 
apud  comicos — far  more  so  than  any  other  form  of  prohibition. 


One  of  the  latest  grammars  (Allen  and  Greenough,  §311)  says 
that  in  aliquis  dicat  and  aliquis  dixerit  the  two  tenses  refer 
without  distinction  to  the  immediate  future.  The  same  grammar, 
in  dealing  with  modest  assertion,  draws  no  distinction  between 
putaverim  and  putem.  It  is  customary,  again,  to  dismiss  the 
perfect  subjunctive  in  prayers  with  the  mere  statement  that  it  is 
a  reminiscence  of  archaic  formulae,  without  a  hint  that  the  perfect 
necessarily  means  anything.  It  has  seemed  to  me  that  this  loose- 
ness of  interpretation  is  entirely  at  variance  with  the  facts  of  the 
language,  and  I  have  accordingly  undertaken  an  investigation  of 
the  whole  range  of  those  independent  constructions  of  the  perfect 
subjunctive  in  which  that  tense  deals  with  future  time.  I  have 
included  also  in  my  investigation  such  uses  of  the  future  perfect 
indicative  as  are  frequently  said  to  be  '  equivalent  to  the  simple 
future.'  For  the  purposes  of  the  paper  I  have  collected  and 
classified  all  the  instances  of  the  uses  concerned  that  are  to  be 
found  in  all  the  remains  of  the  Latin  language  up  to  the  end  of 
the  Augustan  period  (except  the  later  inscriptions),  together  with 
important  parts  of  Silver  Latin.  I  ought  perhaps  to  say  that  for 
four  volumes  of  the  Teubner  text  I  accepted  a  collection  of 
instances  made  by  one  of  my  students.  He  is,  however,  one  in 
whose  care  and  accuracy  I  have  great  confidence,  and  I  feel  sure 
that  his  collection  is  substantially  complete. 

That  part  of  my  investigation  the  results  of  which  I  have 
chosen  for  the  present  paper  deals  chiefly  with  the  2d  person, 
present  and  perfect  tenses,  of  the  subjunctive  in  prohibitions. 
For  the  purpose  of  simplifying  the  discussion  I  shall,  for  the 
present,  exclude  the  few  cases  (commonly  called  prohibitions 
and  classed  under  ne  with  the  subjunctive)  introduced  by  nee, 
numquam,  nihil  (e.  g.  nee  dixeris,  nee  putaveris).  There  are  so 
serious  objections  to  explaining  any  one  of  those  introduced  by 
nee  {neque)  in  the  best  prose-writers,  and  some  of  those  intro- 
duced by  nihily  numquam,  as  instances  of  the  same  construction 
as  that  found  in  ne  feeeris,  that  I  shall  leave  the  discussion  of 
such  cases  for  Part  II  of  my  paper. 

The  impression  is  very  generally  given  that  ne  with  the  perfect 
subjunctive  is  one  of  the  most  common  methods  of  expressing 
prohibition  in  the  best  classical  prose.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is 
almost  entirely  unknown  to  such  prose.  It  will  be  understood, 
of  course,  that  the  Letters  of  Cicero  do  not  represent  the  usage 
of  what  is  understood  by  'classical  prose.'     Tyrrell  has  clearly 


shown  that  the  diction  and  constructions  in  the  Letters  are  the 
diction  and  constructions  of  the  early  comic  drama,  and  not  at  all 
those  of  what  is  commonly  meant  by  Ciceronian  Latin.  Indeed, 
Cicero  himself  calls  especial  attention  to  the  wide  difference  in 
this  respect  between  them  and  his  other  productions  in  ad  fam. 
IX  21,  I  Quid  enim  simile  habet  epistola  aut  iudicio  aut  contioni? 
.  .  .  Epistolas  vero  cottidianis  verbis  texere  solemus.  We  must 
not  consider  these  Letters  in  determining  the  usage  of  the  best 
classical  prose,  any  more  than  we  should  the  usage  of  early 
comedy:  they,  as  well  as  the  comedy,  reflect  the  language  of 
familiar  every-day  life.  Throwing  the  Letters  aside,  we  may 
say  that  ne  with  the  2d  person  perfect  subjunctive  does  not 
occur  in  any  production,  whether  prose  or  poetry,  of  the  whole 
Ciceronian  period,  except  in  seven  dialogue  passages  of  Cicero 
where  the  tone  distinctly  sinks  to  that  of  ordinary  conversa- 
tion, or  unceremonious  ordering.^  If,  in  addition  to  these,  we 
except  four  instances  in  Horace,  we  may  say  that  it  does  not 
occur  between  Terence  and  Livy.  It  is  not  to  the  point  to  say 
that  a  prohibition  is  in  its  very  nature  familiar,  nor  would  such 
a  statement  be  true.  The  orations  and  the  philosophical  and 
rhetorical  productions  of  Cicero,  as  well  as  the  productions  of 
other  writers  belonging  to  the  same  period,  abound  with  pro- 
hibitions. The  orations  of  Cicero  alone  contain  81  prohibitions 
(or  probably  twice  this  number  if  we  count  such  expressions  as 
quae  so  ne  facias^  obsecro  ne,  etc.),  and  still  in  his  orations  no 
instance  can  be  found  of  ne  with  the  perfect  subjunctive  except 
in  pro  Murena  31,  where  Cicero  is  quoting  the  supposed  words 
of  a  teacher  to  his  pupil. 

Again,  the  grammar-rule  which  says  that  the  present  tense  is 
used  when  the  prohibition  is  general,  i.  e,  addressed  to  no  one  in 
particular,  while  the  perfect  is  used  when  it  is  addressed  to  some 
particular  person,  or  persons,  is  entirely  misleading  in  the  form  in 
which  it  is  given.  The  grain  of  truth  which  the  rule  contains  is 
rendered  useless  by  the  absence  of  any  hint  as  to  the  principle 
involved.  Sometimes  general  prohibitions  take  the  perfect  tense, 
e.  g.  Cato  de  agri  cultura  4  ne  siveris ;  37,  i  ne  indideris ;  45,  2 
ne  feceris;  93  ne  addideris;  113,  2  ne  siveris;  158,  2  ne  addi- 
deris;  161,  2  ne  sarueris;  XII  Tabulae,  quoted  in  Serv.  in  Verg. 

^  There  is  no  manuscript  authority  whatever  for  ne  siris  (Catullus  66,  91). 
The  manuscript  reading  non  siris  is  the  true  one.  This  matter  will  be  fully 
discussed  in  Part  II  of  my  paper. 


Eel.  8,  99  Unde  est  in  XII  tabulis:  "Neve  alienam  segetem 
pellexeris";  Cic.  pro  Murena  31,  65  Etenim  isti  ipsi  mihi  videntur 
vestri  praeceptores  et  virtutis  magistri,  fines  officiorum  paulo 
longius,  quam  natura  vellet,  protulisse  .  .  .  "Nihil  ignoveris": 
immo  aliquid,  non  omnia.  " Misericordia  commotus  ne  sis": 
etiam,  in  dissolvenda  severitate:  sed  tamen  est  laus  aliqiia 
humanitatis  (quoting  general  precepts  of  the  '  vestri  praeceptores ' 
which  had  just  been  mentioned.  Notice  the  singular  verb  side 
by  side  with  vestri  (instead  of  tui'),  which  seems  to  show  that  the 
prohibition  is  general) ;  Hor.  Sat.  2,  2,  16  Quae  virtus  et  quanta, 
boni,  sit  vivere  parvo  discite  ...  hie  inpransi  meeum  disquirite. 
Cur  hoe  ?  Dicam,  si  potero  .  .  .  seu  pila  velox  .  .  .  seu  te  discus 
agit .  .  .  sperne  cibum  vilem ;  nisi  Hymettia  mella  Falerno  ne 
biberis  diluta.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  probable  that  prohibitions 
addressed  to  definite  persons  occasionally  take  the  present  tense 
at  all  periods  of  the  literature,  and  that  this  use  is  not,  even  in 
classical  times,  confined  to  poetry,  as  is  commonly  supposed.  At 
any  rate,  there  are  passages  in  prose  which  it  requires  ingenuity 
or  violence  to  explain  in  any  other  way,  and  which,  if  found  in 
Plautus  or  Terence,  no  one  would  have  thought  of  explaining 
in  any  other  way.  This  use  is  very  common  in  early  comedy, 
and  I  have  collected  the  following  instances  from  Cicero  and  later 
prose :  Cic.  in  Verr.  II  4,  23,  52  Scuta  si  quando  conquiruntur  a 
privatis  in  bello  ac  tumultu,  tamen  homines  inviti  dant,  etsi  ad 
salutem  communem  dari  sentiunt.  Ne  quem  putetis  sine  maximo 
dolore  argentum  eaelatum  domo  quod  alter  eriperet  protulisse ; 
ib.  de  republica  6,  12,  12  "St!  quaeso,"  inquit,  '^ne  me  e  somno 
exciietis  et  parumper  audite  cetera"  (where  the  imperative 
^  audite^  instead  of  a  subordinate  subjunctive  makes  it  probable 
that  ne  excitetis  is  also  independent);  id.  ad  fam.  i,  9,  23  Quod 
rogas,  ut  mea  tibi  scripta  mittam,  quae  post  discessum  tuom 
seripserim,  sunt  orationes  quaedam,  quas  Menoerito  dabo,  neque 
ita  multae;  ne  pertimescas ;  ib.  16,  9,  4  Reliquom  est,  ut  te  hoc 
rogem  et  a  te  petam  :  ne  temere  naviges — solent  nautae  festinare 
quaestus  sui  causa — cautus  sis,  mi  Tiro — mare  magnum  et  diffi- 
cile tibi  restat — si  poteris,  cum  Mescinio  (naviges) — caute  is  solet 
navigare  (where  cautus  sis  and  the  form  taken  by  the  rest  of  the 
sentence  show  that  ne  naviges  also  is  probably  independent)  ;  id. 
ad  Att.  9, 18,3  "Tu  malum,"  inquies,  "actum  ne  agas'^  (a  proverb 
applied  here  to  a  particular  person);  id.  ad  Quintum  fratrem  i, 
4,  I  Amabo  te,  mi  frater,  ne  ,  ,  .  adsignes  (Cicero  never  uses 


amare  in  this  sense  with  a  dependent  clause,  though  its  paren- 
thetical use  is  common  in  his  Letters  with  independent  imperative 
constructions,  e.  g.  ad  Att.  2,  2,  i  cura,  amabo  te,  Ciceronem ; 
ib.  16,  16^  Amabo  te,  da  mihi  et  hoc;  ib.  10,  10,  3;  ad  Quint.  2, 
8,  [10])^;  Phil.  II  5,  10  ne  puietis  (most  naturally  taken  as  inde- 
pendent) ;  Livy  44,  22  Vos  quae  scripsero  senatui  aut  vobis  habete 
pro  certis.  Rumores  credulitate  vestra  ne  alaiis,  quorum  auctor 
nemo  exstabit  (This,  or  some  reading  which  involves  the  same 
construction,  seems  inevitably  correct,  arid  would  undoubtedly 
be  accepted  by  everybody  were  it  not  for  the  supposed  rule)  ; 
ib.  22,  39,  2  Armatus  intentusque  sis,  neque  occasion!  tuae  desis 
neque  suam  occasionem  hosti  des  (Livy  and  later  writers  freely 
use  7ieque  for  neve);  Tac.  Dialogus  17  Ex  quo  colligi  potest  et 
Corvinum  ab  illis  et  Asinium  audiri  potuisse  (nam  Corvinus  in 
medium  usque  Augusti  principatum,  Asinius  paene  ad  extremum 
duravit).  Ne  dividaiis  saeculum,  et  antiquos  ac  veteres  vocitetis 
oratores  quos  eorundem  hominum  aures  adgnoscere  ac  velut 
coniungere  et  copulare  potuerunt.  It  was  formerly  customary 
among  editors  of  the  Dialogus  to  punctuate  this  sentence  as 
above.  Recent  editors  use  only  a  comma  or  a  semicolon  before 
ne  dividaiis y  understand  an  ellipsis  (i.  e.  Haec  dico  ne,  etc.),  and 
thus  make  Tacitus  use  a  very  awkward  sentence.  Why  make 
this  so  difficult  ?  Why  not  let  it  be  what  it  seems  to  be  on  the 
face  of  it,  namely,  a  prohibition  ? 

Here,  then,  are  several  instances  in  prose  of  the  present  subjunc- 
tive with  ne  addressed  to  a  definite  person.  The  reason  why  it 
is  not  more  common  will  appear  later  on  in  this  discussion.  But 
even  if  none  of  these  examples  existed  (and  there  have  been 
ingenious  attempts  to  explain  away  most  of  them  in  deference 
to  the  supposed  rule),  there  would  still  be  no  ground  for  such  a 
rule.  In  the  whole  field  of  classical  prose  from  the  beginning  of 
the  Ciceronian  period  to  the  end  of  the  Augustan  period,  and 
even  later,  there  is  but  a  single  example  of  ne  with  the  indefinite 
2d  person  present  subjunctive  in  a  prohibition.  There  are  a  few 
examples  from  poetry,  but  these  have  no  bearing  upon  the  point 
in  question,  as  it  is  everywhere  acknowledged  that  ne  with  the 
present  is  common  in  poetry  even  in  addressing  a  definite  person. 
The  single  example  just  referred  to  is  of  course  the  one  cited 
under  this  rule,  with  suspicious  uniformity,  by  all  Latin  gram- 

^  Even  in  Plautus  and  Terence  amabo  in  this  sense  is  almost  invariably 
thrown  in  parenthetically. 


mars,  viz.  Cic  Cato  Maior  lo,  33,  though  even  here  it  might  be 
noticed  that  Cato  is  speaking  to  definite  persons,  addressing  at 
one  time  Scipio  individually,  again  Laelius,  and  still  again  both 
together.  The  truth  is  that  a  general  prohibition  in  Latin  is 
nearly  always  expressed  by  the  use  of  the  3d  person,  e.  g.  ne 
quis  putei,  etc.,  or  some  circumlocution  introduced  by  cavendum 
est  ne,  or  the  like.  It  will,  I  think,  be  admitted  that  the  above 
considerations  at  least  cast  serious  doubt  upon  the  validity 
of  the  grammar-rules  regarding  the  use  of  ne  in  prohibitions. 
The  question  as  to  the  true  distinction  between  the  tenses  in  such 
constructions  seems  to  me  to  be  still  an  open  one,  and  this  paper 
is  intended  as  a  contribution  to  its  solution. 

Let  us  start  with  certain  general  principles.  All  will  agree 
that  the  perfect  subjunctive,  when  dealing  with  a  future  act, 
differs,  at  least  in  some  uses,  from  the  present  in  representing 
the  act  as  one  finished  in  the  future.  For  instance,  in  the  expres- 
sion si  venerit,  videat  the  act  of  coming  is  conceived  of  as  a 
finished  act  in  the  future,  about  to  be  completed  prior  to  the 
beginning  of  the  act  of  seeing.  In  si  vejiiat,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  act  is  conceived  of  as  in  progress  in  the  future.  Such  a 
distinction  between  the  tenses  of  ne  feceris  and  ne  facias  would 
not  be  entirely  satisfactory  at  all  points  of  the  parallel.  Ne 
feceris  cannot  mean  literally  '  Do  not  prior  to  a  certain  point  in 
the  future,  have  done  it.'  In  one  respect,  however,  the  distinc- 
tion, it  seems  to  me,  still  holds.  In  ne  feceris  there  is  at  least  no 
thought  of  the  progress  of  the  act.  The  expression  deals  with 
an  act  in  its  entirety.  The  beginning,  the  progress  and  the  end 
of  the  act  are  brought  together  and  focussed  in  a  single  concep- 
tion. The  idea  of  the  act  is  not  dwelt  upon,  but  merely  touched, 
for  an  instant,  and  then  dismissed.  The  speaker,  as  it  were, 
makes  short  work  of  the  thought.  There  is  a  certain  impetus 
about  the  tense.  When  a  man  says  ne  facias  he  is  taking  a 
comparatively  calm,  dispassionate  view  of  an  act  conceived  of 
as  one  that  will  possibly  be  taking  place  in  the  future ;  ne  feceris, 
on  the  other  hand,  implies  that  the  speaker  cannot  abide  the 
thought ;  he  refers  to  it  only  for  the  purpose  of  insisting  that  it 
be  dismissed  absolutely  as  one  not  to  be  harbored.  As  far  as 
the  comparative  vigor  of  the  two  expressions  is  concerned,  the 
difference  in  feehng  between  them  is  similar  to  that  between 
'Go!'  and  'Be  gone!'  *Go'  dwells  upon  the  progress  of  the 
act.     A  man  never  says  'Be  gone!'  except   when  aroused  by 


strong  emotion,  which  does  not  allow  him  to  think  of  the 
progress  of  the  act,  but  only  the  prompt  accomplishment  of  it. 
In  a  similar  way  yiefeceris  betrays  stronger  feeling  than  ne facias 
— it  disposes  of  the  thought  with  the  least  possible  ado.  The 
same  distinction  should  be  made  between  cave  feceris  and  cave 
facias.  This  feature  of  the  tense,  if  my  characterization  of  it  is 
correct,  would  lead  us  to  expect  it  to  be  used  only,  or  chiefly,  in 
animated,  emotional,  or  unusually  earnest  discourse,  and  to  such 
passages,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  is  it  almost  exclusively  con- 
fined. I  wish  to  insist  upon  this  as  the  only  real  distinction 
between  the  two  tenses  with  ne.  We  shall  now,  of  course,  expect 
that  in  the  majority  of  cases  where  a  prohibition  is  a  general, 
indefinite  one,  the  present  tense  will  be  found.  When  a  man  is 
soberly  philosophizing  and  writing  precepts  for  the  world  at 
large,  he  is  not  often  aroused  by  emotions  so  strong  as  he  is 
when,  actually  face  to  face  with  a  person  and  perhaps  under  the 
influence  of  anger,  alarm  or  some  other  intense  feeling,  he  orders 
that  person  not  to  do  a  certain  thing.  But  even  in  this  sort  of 
writing,  when  he  feels  that  his  precept  is  of  prime  importance,  he 
may  occasionally  fall  into  the  more  vigorous  form  of  expression. 
For  the  satisfactory  study  of  such  expressions  we  look  for  some 
production  abounding  in  general  precepts,  and  still  not  written  in 
the  form  of  dialogue  and  not  addressed  to  any  one  in  particular. 
Naturally  we  turn  to  Cato's  de  agri  cultura.  In  the  seven 
different  passages  of  this  work  cited  above,  Cato  uses  ne  with 
the  perfect  in  a  general  prohibition.  In  each  case  the  context 
makes  it  probable,  or,  in  the  light  of  facts  which  I  shall  present 
later,  practically  certain,  that  he  considers  of  especial  importance 
the  particular  thing  prohibited,  e.  g.  ch.  4,  where  he  is  trying  to 
show  how  a  farmer  may  live  happy  and  prosperous :  ruri  si  recte 
habitaveris,  libentius  venies:  fundus  melior,  minus  peccabitur, 
fructi  plus  capies.  Frons  occipitio  prior  est :  vicinis  bonus  esto : 
familiam  ne  siveris  peccare.  Si  te  libenter  vicinitas  videbit,  facilius 
tua  vendes,  operas  facilius  locabis  etc.,  i.  e. '  above  all  things^  do  not 
allow  the  members  of  your  household  to  offend  them.  If  you  keep 
on  good  terms  with  your  neighbors,  you  will  find  it  easier  to  sell 
your  produce,'  etc.;  again,  37,  i :  '  If  you  are  dealing  with  land  that 
is  cariosa,  peas  are  a  bad  crop  to  put  in ;  so  are  barley,  hay,  etc.; 
above  all  things,  do  not  put  in  nuts  (nucleos  ne  indideris).'  Every- 
where else  in  his  treatise  he  uses  the  less  vigorous  forms  of  prohi- 
bition, sometimes  nolito  with  the  infinitive,  sometimes  ne  with  the 


8 

2d  imperative,  sometimes  caveto  with  the  present  tense  of  the  sub- 
junctive. He  never  uses  the  perfect  tense  with  caveto,  though  this 
tense  with  cave  is  far  more  common  in  Plautus  than  the  present. 
The  present  tense,  on  the  other  hand,  occurs  in  Cato  17  times. 

By  far  the  best  place  to  study  the  difference  in  meaning  between 
the  two  tenses  is  in  Plautus  and  Terence,  because  in  them  (and 
only  in  them)  both  tenses  are  very  freely  used  with  ne  and  cave 
in  prohibitions.  It  is  there,  too,  that  the  tone  of  the  prohibition 
can  best  be  determined,  because  the  dramatic  action  makes  clear 
the  feeling  of  the  speaker.  I  give  below  classified  lists  of  all  the 
passages  in  Plautus  and  Terence  containing  prohibitions  of  this 
sort.^  In  studying  these  lists,  there  are  certain  considerations 
which  should  be  kept  constantly  in  mind.  In  all  but  a  compara- 
tively few  cases,  the  distinction  I  have  drawn  between  the  perfect 
and  the  present  tenses  will  be  very  clear.  But  of  course  some 
instances,  both  of  the  perfect  and  of  the  present,  will  be  found 
near  the  border-line.  In  some  cases  where  the  speaker  is  moved 
by  only  slight  emotion,  one  tense  would  be  as  appropriate  and 
natural  as  the  other.  Again,  a  speaker  may  be  somewhat  aroused 
while  still  under  perfect  self-control  and  realizing  the  advisability 
of  calm  language.  On  the  other  hand,  a  speaker  may  be  really 
very  calm,  while  wishing,  for  certain  purposes,  to  seem  very 
indignant.  We  should  also  bear  in  mind  a  natural  tendency  to 
unceremoniousness  and  a  vigorous  off-hand  style  in  every-day 
conversation  between  friends  and  in  the  language  of  superiors  to 
inferiors.  If  we  keep  in  mind  these  considerations,  a  comparison 
of  the  following  lists  will,  I  think,  inevitably  lead  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  distinction  I  have  drawn  is  the  true  one. 

There  are  in  Plautus  and  Terence  31  instances  of  ne  with  the 
perfect  subjunctive.  In  nearly  all  of  these  the  feeling  of  strong 
emotion  of  some  sort — e.  g.  great  alarm,  fear  of  disaster  if  the 
prohibition  is  not  complied  with,  or  the  like — is  very  prominent. 
Many  of  them  are  accompanied  by  other  expressions  which 
betray  the  speaker's  earnestness,  e.  g.  per  deos  atque  homines, 
opsecro,  hercle,  etc.  And  there  is  not  one  of  them  in  the  least 
inconsistent  with  my  explanation  of  the  meaning  of  the  tense. 
Plautus  has  this  construction  in  the  following  passages^:  Am.  924 

^  I  was  surprised  to  find  no  instance  of  this  use  in  the  tragedies  of  Seneca, 
who,  I  believe,  uses  only  ne  with  the  imperative  (or  vide  ne  with  the  subjunc- 
tive) in  prohibitions. 

2 1  have  not  thought  it  necessary  for  my  present  purpose  to  make  a  separate 
class  of  such  aorists  as  dixis,  parsis,  etc. 


Per  dexteram  tuam  te,  Alcumena,  oro,  opsecro  te,  da  mi  banc 
veniam,  irata  ne  sies  (evidently  here  the  perfect  of  irascor.  The 
fact  that  this  verb  is  inchoative  in  form  does  not  miUtate  against 
the  principle  I  have  laid  down,  as  it  is  seldom  inchoative  [never 
so,  if  we  may  trust  Harpers'  Diet]  in  meaning.  It  commonly 
means  to  feel  angry.  When  the  beginning  of  the  act  is  referred 
to  incipio,  or  a  verb  of  similar  meaning  is  used  with  it,  e.  g.  ad  Att. 
4,  I,  8  incipiuni  irasci.  Inchoative  verbs  are  not  found  in  this 
construction) ;  Miles  283  Sc.  Nescis  tu  fortasse,  apud  nos  facinus 
quod  natumst  novom.  Pal.  Quod  id  est  facinus  ?  Sc.  Impudicum. 
Pal.  (not  wanting  to  hear  such  news)  Tute  sci  soli  tibi :  Mihi  ne 
dixis.  Notice  the  many  indications  of  earnest  feeling :  Tute  {tu 
alone  even  would  have  been  emphatic)  soli  tibi,  and  all  sharply 
contrasted  with  mihi]  ib.  862  Peril:  excruciabit  me  erus  .  .  .  Fu- 
giam  hercle  .  .  .  ne  dixeritis,  opsecro,  huic  vostram  fidem !  ib. 
1333:  Here  Philocomasium  has  just  fainted  and  fallen  into  the  arms 
of  her  lover,  at  the  thought  of  leaving  him.  All  is  excitement. 
One  says :  Run  for  some  water.  The  lover  exclaims :  ne  inter- 
veneris,  quaeso,  dum  resipiscit;  Rudens  1155  Peril  in  primo 
praelio:  mane!  ne  osienderisi  Here  his  possession  of  the 
treasure  that  has  been  found  depends,  as  he  thinks,  upon  its 
not  being  shown;  Trin.  521  Per  deos  atque  homines  dico,  ne 
tu  illunc  agrum  tuom  siris  umquam  fieri ;  ib.  704  (Lysiteles  in  a 
quarrel  with  Lesbonicus,  indignant  at  the  suggestion  of  anything 
which  might  reflect  upon  his  character)  Id  me  commissurum  ut 
patiar  fieri  ne  animum  induxeris ;  ib.  1012  Ne  desiiteris  currere 
(addressed  to  himself  in  fear  of  a  flogging.  All  his  words  at  this 
point  indicate  hurry  and  alarm)  ;  Asin.  839  Son  (in  a  tone  of 
earnest  deprecation,  in  answer  to  his  father's  taunt)  :  Ne  dixis 
istuc.  Father:  Ne  s\c  fueris:  ilico  ego  non  dixero;  Cure.  599 
Planesium  (to  Phaedromus,  in  great  fear  lest  the  parasite  escape 
with  the  stolen  ring)  .  .  .  propera!  .  .  .  Parasitum  ne  amiseris! 
Pseud.  79  Id  quidem  hercle  ne  parsisf  Most.  1083  Theopro- 
PIDES  (angry,  and  resolved  to  punish  Tranio,  trying  to  get  him 
away  from  the  altar,  where  he  had  taken  refuge)  :  Surge  .  .  .  ne 
occupassis,  opsecro,  aram  .  .  .  surgedum  hinc  .  .  .  surge :  ne 
nugare.  Aspicedum ;  Men.  415  Ne  feceris !  periisti,  si  intrassis 
intra  limen ;  ib.  617  Pe.  (during  an  angry  dispute)  At  tu  ne  clam 
me  commessis  prandium.  Me.  Non  taces?  Pe.  Non  hercle 
vero  taceo;  Epid.  150  (in  answer  to  Stratippocles'  intimation 
that  he  would  commit  suicide)  ne  feceris!  ib.  593  Per.  Si  hercle 


lO 

te  umquam  audivero  me  patrem  vocare,  vitam  tuam  ego  interi- 
mam.  Fid.  Nonvoco  . . .  nefueris  pater;  Poen.  552  (the lawyers, 
speaking  with  professional  decisiveness  and  importance)  Nos  tu 
ne  curassis!  scimus  rem  omnem.  The  tone  assumed  here  by 
the  speakers  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  they  have  just 
been  accused  of  speaking  with  too  much  anger  (cf.  vs.  540  nimis 
iracundi  estis) ;  ib.  990  ne  parseris;  Aul.  100  (Euclio  having  a 
large  amount  of  gold  concealed  in  his  house,  is  constantly  alarmed 
lest  it  be  stolen.  He  bids  his  servant  again  and  again  not,  under 
any  circumstances,  to  let  any  one  enter  the  house)  Si  bona 
Fortuna  veniat,  ne  intromiseris  I  ib.  577  Euc.  (still  in  fear  of 
losing  his  treasure)  Ne  in  me  mutassis  nomen !  ib.  737  Lyc. 
(upon  Euclio's  threatening  him  with  death)  Ne  istuc  dixis !  ib. 
790  Ne  me  uno  digito  adtigeris,  ne  te  ad  terram,  scelus,  adfligam  ! 
Cas.  2,  6,  52  St.  Praecide  os  tu  illi !  Age !  Cle.  (trying  to 
prevent  a  fight)  Ne  obiexis  manum !  Cist,  i,  i,  iii  Silenium 
(speaking  of  her  lover,  with  great  depth  of  feeling  that  moves 
her  hearers  to  tears  [vs.  113])  sed,  amabo,  tranquille;  ne  quid, 
quod  illi  doleat,  dixeris!  The  following  seems  near  the  border- 
line, one  tense  being  as  appropriate  as  the  other :  Merc.  396  ne 
duas  neu  te  advexisse  dixeris. 

Terence  has  only  two  instances  of  ne  with  the  perfect:  Phorm. 
514  Unam  praeterea  horam  ne  oppertus  sies.  The  speaker  is 
fairly  beside  himself  throughout  this  scene,  which  sufficiently 
accounts  for  the  more  emotional  form  of  expression.  Ib.  742 
(alarmed  by  fear  lest  his  treachery  be  discovered)  Ne  me  istoc 
posthac  nomine  appellassis. 

The  same  feeling  that  prompts  the  use  of  the  perfect  tense  in 
the  passages  just  cited,  explains  the  use  of  the  same  tense  in 
prohibitions  introduced  by  cave.  Plautus  and  Terence  present 
33  instances  of  cave  with  the  perfect :  Plant.  Am.  608 ;  Miles 
1125;  1245;  1368;  1372;  Trin.  513;  555;  Asin.  256;  467;  625; 
Bacch.  402;  910;  1 188;  Stich.  284;  Most.  388 ;  508;  795;  Men. 
996;  Epid.  400;  434;  Merc.  112;  476;  Poen.  1020;  Aul.  90; 
600;  610;  Persa  388;  933;  Cas.  II  5,  24;  Ter.  And.  753;  760; 
Haut.  187  ;  Adelph.  458. 

If  now  we  turn  to  ne  and  cave  with  the  present  subjunctive  we 
find  a  very  different  state  of  things.  There  are  in  Plautus  and 
Terence  more  than  100  instances  of  ne,  and  18  (19?)  instances  of 
cave,  in  this  form  of  prohibition,  as  will  be  seen  by  consulting  the 
following  list :  Am.  87  (Prologue  addressing  the  audience)  Mirari 


II 

nolim  vos,  quapropter  Juppiter  nunc  histriones  curet.  Ne  mire- 
mini^:  ipse  banc  acturust  Juppiter  comoediam ;  ib.  ii6  (still 
addressing  tbe  audience)  Ne  liunc  ornatum  meum  admiremini; 
Capt.  14  Ego  me  tua  causa,  ne  erres,  non  rupturus  sum  (probably 
ne  here  means  'lest');  ib.  58  (Prologue)  Ne  vereamini,  quia 
bellum  Aetolis  esse  dixi  cum  Aleis;  ib.  186:  The  parasite 
(replying  to  Hegio,  who  has  good-humoredly  warned  him  not 
to  expect  too  much  at  his  table) :  Numquam  istoc  vinces  me, 
Hegio:  ne postules  cum  calceatis  dentibus  veniam ;  ib.  331  Filius 
mens  aput  vos  servit  captus :  eum  si  reddis  mihi,  praeterea  unum 
nummum  ne  duis;  ib.  349  Nee  quemquam  potes  mittere  ad  eum 
quoi  tuom  concredat  filium  audacius.  Ne  vereare:  meo  periculo 
ego  huius  experiar  fidem ;  ib.  393  Istuc  ne  praecipias,  facile 
memoria  memini ;  ib.  854  Nee  nihil  hodie  nee  multo  plus  tu  hie 
edes,  nefrustra  sis;  ib.  947  At  ob  earn  rem  mihi  libellam  pro  eo 
argenti  ne  duis:  gratiis  a  me  ducito ;  ib.  957  Fui  .  .  .  bonus  vir 
numquam  neque  frugi  bonae  neque  ero  umquam  :  ne  spem  ponas 
me  bonae  frugi  fore;  Miles  12 15  Py.  Libertatem  tibi  ego  et  divi- 
tias  dabo,  si  impetras.  Pa.  Reddam  impetratam  ...  At  modice 
decet.  Ne  sis  cupidus;  ib.  1274  Viri  quoque  armati  idem  istuc 
faciunt:  ne  tu  mirere  mulierem;  ib.  1360  Pa.  Muliebres  mores 
discendi.  Py.  Fac  sis  frugi.  Pa.  lam  non  possum :  amisi 
omnem  lubidinem.  Py.  I,  sequere  illos:  ne  morere ;  ib.  1378  Ne 
me  7noneatis:  memini  ego  officium  meum;  ib.  1422  Aliter  hinc 
non  ibis:  ne  sisfrustra;  Rud.941  Nil  habeo,  adulescens,  piscium  : 
ne  tu  mihi  qssq postules ;  ib.  968  Gr.  Hunc  homo  nemo  a  me  feret : 
ne  in  tQ  speres.  Tr.  Non  ferat,  si  dominus  veniat?  Gr.  Domi- 
nus  huic,  ne  (probably  =  'iQsV^frustra  sis,  nisi  ego  nemo  natust, 
hunc  qui  cepi  in  venatu  meo ;  ib.  992  Quod  in  mari  non  natumst 
neque  habet  squamas  ne  /eras;  ib.  1012  Hinc  tu  nisi  malum 
frunisci  nil  potes,  ne  postules ;  ib.  1368  Ut  scias  gaudere  me,  mihi 
triobulum  ob  earn  ne  duis;  ib.  1385  Quod  servo  meo  promisisti, 
meum  esse  oportet.  Ne  tu,  \QnOy  postules;  ib.  1390  Dae.  Opera 
mea  haec  tibi  sunt  servata:  (Gr.  Immo  hercle  mea,  ne  tu  tua 
dicas);  ib.  1414  nihil  hercle  hie  tibi,  7ie  tu  speres;  Trin.  16 
(Prologue,  to  audience)  de  argumento  ne  expectetis  fabulae ;  ib. 
267  Apage  sis  amor.  Amor,  amicus  mihi  ne  fuas  umquam  ;  ib. 
370  Ph.  .  .  .  quid  dare  illi  nunc  vis?  Lu.  Nil  quicquam,  pater: 
Tu  modo  ne  me  prohibeas  accipere,  siquid  det  mihi ;  Bacch.  747 

^Some  of  these  might  be  explained  as  final  clauses  ('that  you  may  not  be 
surprised,'  I  make  the  following  statement,  etc.). 


12 

.  .  .  quod  promisisti  mihi  te  quaeso  ut  memineris,  «<?  ilium  verberes 
(probably  a  dependent  clause) ;  ib.  758  .  .  .  ubi  erit  adcubitum 
semel,  ne  quoquam  exurgaiis,  donee  a  me  erit  signum  datum  ; 
Cure.  183  Pa.  Quin  tu  is  dormitum?  Ph.  Dormio:  ne  occla- 
mites;  ib.  213  Si  amas,  erne:  ne  rogites ;  ib.  539  Ne  mihi  te 
facias  ferocem  aut  supplicare  ceiiseas;  ib.  565  Nil  aput  me 
quidem.  Ne  facias  testis :  neque  equidem  dehibeo  quicquam ; 
ib.  568  Vapulare  ego  te  vehementer  iubeo :  ne  me  ierrites ;  ib. 
713  Non  ego  te  flocci  facio ;  ne  me  ierrites  (the  feeling  in  such 
cases  is  not  that  the  failure  to  comply  with  '■ne  ierrites'  will  be 
disastrous  to  me,  but  that  it  will  do  you  no  good  to  try  to  frighten 
me);  Ps.  275  .  .  .  scimus  nos  te  qualis  sis:  ne praedices ;  ib.  1234 
Sequere  tu.  Nunc  ne  expectetis^  dum  domum  redeam ;  Stich. 
320  Tua  quod  nil  refert,  ne  cures ;  ib.  446  ...  id  ne  vos  mire- 
mini^  homines  servolos  potare  etc.;  Most.  598  Pater  advenit  .  .  . : 
is  tibi  et  faenus  et  sortem  dabit.  Ne  inconciliare  nos  porro 
postules;  ib.  611  Tra.  Huic  debet  Philolaches  paulum.  Theop. 
Quantillum  ?  Tra.  Quadraginta  minas.  Theop.  Paulum  id 
quidemst?  Tra.  Ne  sane  id  multum  censeas;  ib.  799  Ergo 
inridere  ne  videare  et  gestire  admodum ;  ib.  994  Ad  cenam  ne 
me  te  vocare  censeas;  ib.  loio  Theop.  Minas  tibi  octoginta 
argenti  debeo.  Si.  Non  mihi  quidem  hercle :  verum  si  debes, 
cedo.  .  .  .  Ne  ire  initias  postules;  Men.  327  ne  quo  abeas  longius 
ab  aedibus;  ib.  790  Quid  ille  faciat,  ne  id  observes;  Epid.  147 
Ep.  a  quo  trapezita  peto  ?  Strat.  Unde  lubet.  Nam  ni  .  .  . 
(prompseris),  meam  domum  ne  inbitas;  ib.  305  Ne  abitas,  prius- 
quam  ego  ad  te  venero ;  ib.  339  [hoc  quidem  iam  periit,  ne  quid 
tibi  hinc  in  spem  refer  as  (perhaps  dependent)] ;  Merc.  164 
Char.  Quid  istuc  est  maH?  Acan.  Ne  rogites;  ib.  318  Dem. 
Ne  me  obiurga.  Lys.  .  .  .  non  obiurgo.  Dem.  At  ne  deteriorem 
hoc  facto  ducas  (there  seems  to  be  slight  emotion  here;  either 
tense  would  seem  appropriate)  ;  ib.  396  Ne  duas  neu  te  advexisse 
dixeris  (this,  like  the  passage  just  cited  (vs.  318),  seems  on  the 
border-line.  The  speaker  is  really  very  earnest,  but  is,  as  shown 
by  the  general  situation,  anxious  not  to  appear  too  much  so,  lest 
his  real  motive  be  guessed.  The  sudden  change  of  tense,  then, 
is  not  surprising);  ib.  457  Ad  portum  ne  bitas,  dico  iam  tibi 
(perhaps  dependent) ;  ib.  520  Nunc,  mulier,  ne  tu  frustra  sis, 
mea  non  es;  ne  arbitrere ;  Poen.  520  Ne  tuo  nos  amori  servos 
esse  addictos  censeas;  ib.  526  Ne\.\x  opinere  (perhaps  dependent); 
ib.  536  Est  domi,  quod  edimus,  7te  nos  tam  contemptim  coiiteras 


13 

(perhaps  dependent  upon  'I  say  this,'  understood);  ib.  1152 
Audin  tu,  patrue?  Dico,  ne  dictum  neges  (perhaps  dependent)"; 
ib.  1370  Ne  mirere,  mulieres,  quod  eum  sequontur;  Aul.  166 
Verba  7ie  facias,  soror;  ib.  231  EucL.  At  nihil  est  dotis  quod 
dem.  Meg.  Ne  duas,  dum  modo  morata  recte  veniat,  dotatast 
satis.  EuCL.  Eo  dico,  ne  me  thensauros  repperisse  censeas, 
Meg.  Novi;  ne  doceas;  ib.  350  Sunt  igitur  ligna,  ne  quaeras 
foris;  Persa  141  Numquam  hercle  hodie  hie  prius  edis,  ne 
frustra  sis;  True.  477  Ne  exspectetis,  spectatores,  meas  pugnas 
dum  praedicem ;  ib.  658  Ne  me  morari  censeas ;  ib.  744  Res  ita 
est,  ne  frustra  sis ;  Cas,  Prol.  64  (to  audience)  Ne  exspedetis 
etc.;  ib.  II  6,  42  Ne  a  me  memores  malitiose  de  hac  re  factum, 
aut  suspices;  Cist.  II  3,  16  Nam  illaec  tibi  nutrix  est:  ne  matrem 
censeas;  ib.  V  (to  audience)  Ne  expectetis,  spectatores  etc.  In 
Capt.  548  Hegio,  hie  homo  rabiosus  habitus  est  in  Ah'de :  ne  tu 
quod  istic  fabuletur  auris  inmiitas  tuas,  and  in  Miles  1363  (1351) 
Pa.  Si  forte  hber  fieri  occeperim  mittam  nuntium  ad  te :  ne  me 
deseras,  there  seems  to  be  a  certain  amount  of  emotion,  but  it 
will  be  noticed  that  in  each  case  the  speaker  is  addressing  a 
superior.  In  the  former  case,  too,  the  speaker  is  anxious  to 
appear  calm  and  undisturbed.  Furthermore,  ne  might  well  be 
taken  here  in  the  sense  of  'lest.'  In  the  other  passage,  the  slave 
who  is  speaking  does  not  even  mean  what  he  says.  He  is  really 
glad  that  he  is  going,  and  never  wants  to  see  again  the  master 
whom  he  is  addressing.  In  the  light  of  this  fact,  ne  deseras 
seems  cool  irony.  The  stereotyped  formula  ne  molestus  sis 
occurs  in  Plant.  Asin.  469;  Ps.  118;  889;  Most.  74;  572;  757; 
863;  871;  Men.  251;  Aul.  450;  but  in  nearly  all  of  these 
instances  it  might  be  taken  as  dependent  upon  some  other  verb 
expressed  or  understood.  In  any  case,  one  must  not  look  for 
strong  emotion  in  so  commonplace  a  phrase.  Ne  with  the 
present  subjunctive  occurs  in  Terence  in  the  following  passages : 
And.  704  Huic,  non  tibi,  habeo,  ne  erres  (perhaps  dependent) ; 
ib.  706  Dies  hie  mihi  ut  satis  sit  vereor  ad  agendum  :  ne  vacuom 
esse  me  nunc  ad  narrandum  credas;  ib.  980  (to  audience)  Ne 
exspecteiis  dum  exeant  hue;  Eun.  76  Quid  agas?  nisi  ut  te 
redimas  captum  quam  queas  minimo :  .  .  .  et  ne  te  adfiictes ; 
ib.  212  Ego  quoque  una  pereo,  quod  mihi  est  carius:  ne  istuc 
tarn  iniquo  patiare  animo;  ib.  273  Gn.  Quia  tristis  es.  Pa. 
Nihil  quidem.  Gn.  Ne  sis;  ib.  388  Si  certumst  facere,  faciam : 
verum  ne  post  conferas  culpam  in  me;  ib.  786  Sane  quod  tibi 


14 

nunc  vir  videatur  esse  hie,  nebulo  magnus  est:  ne  meiuas ; 
ib.  988  Ere,  ne  me  species:  me  inpulsore  haec  non  facit;  Haut. 
745  Sy.  Ancillas  .  .  .  traduce  hue  propere.  Dr.  Quam  ob  rem  ? 
Sy.  Ne  quaeras;  Phorm.  419  "Actum"  aiunt  ''ne  agas"" ;  Hec. 
342  Non  visas  ?  Ne  mittas  quidem  visendi  causa  quemquam ; 
Adelph.  22  Ne  exspectetis  argumentum  fabulae.  In  Phorm.  508 
Heia,  ne  parum  leno  sies,  the  w^-clause  is  rightly  explained  by 
editors  as  dependent  *  Look  out  there,  lest,'  etc.  Besides  these, 
there  are  five  instances  of  ne  attigas  which  will  call  for  comment 
later. 

Cave  with  the  present  tense  of  the  subjunctive  occurs  as  follows  : 
Plant.  Capt.  431;  439;  Most.  797;  1012;  Epid.  432;  Persa  52; 
812;  Cas.  Ill  I,  16;  Poen.  117;  Ter.  Eun.  751;  Haut.  302; 
826  (?) ;  Phorm.  993;  Adelph.  170. 

There  are  certain  remarkable  differences  between  the  prohi- 
bitions in  this  latter  list  (expressed  by  the  present  tense)  and 
those  in  the  former  list  (expressed  by  the  perfect)  which  a  casual 
observer  might  not  notice.  If  my  distinction  between  the  two 
tenses  is  correct,  we  should  expect  that  a  prohibition  dealing  with 
mere  mental  action,  e.  g.  *Do  not  suppose,'  'Do  not  be  surprised,' 
*  Do  not  be  afraid,'  would  commonly  take  the  present  tense, 
because  such  prohibitions  would  not  commonly  be  accompanied 
by  strong  emotion,  and,  as  far  as  the  interests  of  the  speaker  are 
concerned,  it  matters  little  whether  the  prohibition  be  complied 
with  or  not.  Such  a  condition  of  things  is  exactly  what  we  find. 
Among  the  instances  of  ne  with  the  perfect  tense,  not  a  single 
example  of  a  verb  of  this  class  will  be  found ;  but  among  those 
of  ne  with  the  present  there  are  no  less  than  3 1  instances  of  such 
verbs,  or  nearly  a  third  of  the  entire  number.  Again,  such 
prohibitions  as  *Do  not  ask  me,'  'Do  not  remind  me'  (i.e. 
I  know  already),  would  not  ordinarily  imply  any  emotion,  and 
no  such  verbs  will  be  found  among  the  instances  of  7ie  with  the 
perfect.^  But  there  are  13  such  verbs  among  the  instances  of  the 
present.  Substantially  the  same  holds  true  for  the  ^«z/^-construc- 
tions.  Among  the  33  instances  of  cave  with  the  perfect  there  is 
no  instance  of  a  verb  belonging  to  any  of  these  classes.  There 
is  no  avoidance  of  such  verbs  with  cave  used  with  the  present 

^  The  nearest  approach  to  an  exception  is  iratus  ne  sies  (Plaut.  Am.  924), 
which  seems  here  to  be  the  perfect  tense  of  irascor.  Here  there  is  an  addi- 
tional idea  of  venting  one's  anger,  which  removes  it,  strictly  speaking,  from 
the  class  referred  to. 


15 

tense  (in  spite  of  the  fact  that  there  are  only  about  half  so 
many  instances  of  the  present  as  of  the  perfect),  e.  g.  Ter. 
Phorm.  993;  Haut.  826  {admiraius  here  probably  used  adjec- 
tively,  as  in  ad  Att.  9,  12,  2  and  Off.  2,  10,  35);  Plaut.  Asin. 
372 ;  Capt.  431  (?) ;  or  with  noli  (though  noli  is  comparatively 
rare  in  Plautus  and  Terence),  e.  g.  Plaut.  Persa  619;  Capt. 
845 ;  Ter.  Phorm.  556 ;  or  with  7ie  followed  by  the  imperative,  a 
construction  which  occurs  33  times  in  Plautus  and  Terence  with 
such  verbs  (out  of  a  total  of  84  instances) :  Plaut.  Am.  674 ; 
1064;  mo;  Capt.  554;  Miles  893;  895;  ion;  1345;  Rud.688; 
1049;  Trin.  1181;  Asin.  462;  638;  826;  Cure.  520;  Ps.  103; 
734;  922;  Men.  140;  Merc.  172;  873;  879;  993;  Cas.  4,  4,  14; 
Most.  629;  True.  496;  Aul.  427;  Persa  674;  Ter.  And.  543; 
Adelph.  279;  942;  Haut.  85  {bis)}  Outside  of  Plautus  and 
Terence  such  verbs  occur,  in  the  ante-Ciceronian  period,  as 
follows:  Cato  de  agr.  cult,  i,  4  caveto  contemnas;  ib.  64,  i  nolito 
credere  (*  do  not  believe') ;  Corpus  Inscriptionum  Latinarum,  1 1445 
credere  noli ;  ib.  1453  spernere  nolei.  But  nowhere  in  this  whole 
period  is  such  a  verb  to  be  found  in  the  perfect  tense  in  a  prohi- 
bition. Why  this  mysterious  absence  of  all  such  verbs  from  this 
one  sort  of  prohibition?  Recurring  to  the  instances  of  the 
present  tense  in  Plautus  and  Terence,  we  notice  that  in  11  of 
the  passages  the  prologue,  or  some  one  else,  is  calmly  addressing 
the  audience  with  '  Do  not  expect  me  to  disclose  the  plot  of  the 
play,'  or  some  prohibition  equally  calm.  But  there  is  not  one 
instance  in  the  prologues  either  of  Plautus  or  Terence  of  the 

^  It  will  be  noticed  that  in  Plautus  and  Terence  more  than  one-third  of  the 
verbs  in  prohibitions  expressed  by  ne  and  the  imperative  are  verbs  of  fearing 
(22  of  the  33),  thinking,  asking  or  advising.  Of  the  remaining  verbs,  a  large 
proportion  are  verbs  of  saying  and  weeping.  A  similar  state  of  things  prevails 
in  Vergil,  who  uses  this  construction  27  times.  In  12  of  these  the  verbs 
belong  to  the  classes  just  mentioned.  All  this  is  interesting  in  connection 
with  the  much-mooted  question  regarding  the  relative  harshness  in  Greek  of 
fir}  with  the  present  imperative  and  fii}  with  the  aorist  subjunctive.  See  Dr. 
Miller's  paper  on  the  Imperative  in  the  Attic  Orators,  A.  J.  P.  XTII  424.  In 
Latin,  ne  with  the  perfect  subjunctive  is  harsher  than  ne  with  the  imperative, 
the  latter  corresponding  rather  closely  in  this  respect  with  ne  and  the  present 
subjunctive.  Both  of  these  last-mentioned  constructions,  however  {ne  with 
imperat.  and  ne  with  pres.  subj.),  smacked  somewhat  of  the  same  familiar 
feeling  as  their  sister  construction.  Noli  was  far  more  deferential,  and 
Cicero,  when  he  wished  to  soften  the  tone  of  his  address,  accordingly 
preferred  that  form  of  prohibition. 


i6 

perfect  tense  in  prohibition.  And  this  again  is  exactly  what  we 
should  expect.  (It  matters  little  for  our  present  purpose  whether 
Plautus  wrote  the  prologues  to  his  plays  or  not.)  In  general  the 
fact  may  be  emphasized  that  ne  with  the  present  is  chiefly 
confined  to  prohibitions  of  the  most  commonplace  sort.  Where 
this  is  not  apparent  from  the  nature  of  the  verb  itself,  a  study  of 
the  context  will  show  that  the  speaker  is  not  under  the  influence 
of  any  strong  emotion.  There  are  in  all  only  5  instances  (a  small 
number  out  of  so  many)  which  can  fairly  be  said  to  be  accom- 
panied by  decided  emotion,  and  in  each  case,  strangely  enough, 
the  verb  is  attigas,  viz.  Plaut.  Bacch.  445 ;  Most.  453 ;  Epid.  721 ; 
True.  273;  Ten  And.  789.  I  cannot  account  for  this  strange 
exception,  unless  one  accepts  Curtius'  suggestion  that  attigas  is 
an  aoristic  form  (Stud.  V  433).  The  few  additional  passages 
that  might  apparently  be  construed  as  exceptions  have  been 
commented  upon  under  the  citation. 

Whatever  differences  of  opinion  may  be  held  regarding  indi- 
vidual instances  in  the  two  lists  above  given,  I  feel  sure  that  no 
one  who  studies  them  carefully  can  resist  the  general  conclusion 
to  which  I  have  come.  If,  now,  the  distinction  I  have  drawn 
between  the  two  tenses  holds  so  clearly  for  the  only  two  authors 
who  make  frequent  use  of  ne  with  the  subjunctive  in  prohibitions, 
a  strong  presumption  is  established  in  favor  of  a  similar  distinc- 
tion in  the  few  instances  to  be  found  in  later  writers,  where  there 
are  not  always  so  many  indications  at  hand,  as  in  dramatic  pro- 
ductions, to  make  clear  the  feeling  of  the  writer.  And  a  study 
of  these  instances  confirms  the  presumption.  There  are  in 
classical  prose,  from  the  beginning  of  the  Ciceronian  period  up 
to  near  the  end  of  the  Augustan  period,  only  seven  instances  of 
ne  with  the  perfect  in  prohibition,  and  these  are  all  in  Cicero. 
As  pointed  out  above,  each  of  these  occurs  in  dialogue  where 
the  tone  sinks  to  that  of  ordinary  conversation,  in  which  some 
one  is  delivering  himself  of  an  earnest,  energetic  command.  One 
is  naturally  more  unceremonious  in  addressing  a  familiar  friend 
than  in  addressing  a  mere  acquaintance:  he  falls  more  readily 
into  energetic  forms  of  expression.  Often  he  assumes  an  off- 
hand, imperious  tone  in  such  cases  merely  as  a  bit  of  pleasantry. 
This  would  be  especially  natural  when  one  was  urging  his  friend 
not  to  do  what  he  feared  that  friend  might  do — namely,  in  pro- 
hibitions. One  can  hardly  fail  to  notice  this  tone  at  any  talkative 
gathering  of  intimate  friends.     Let  us  examine  now  more  care- 


fully  the  seven  instances  referred  to:  de  div.  2,  6i,  127  (a  sup*- 
posed  command  of  a  god  to  a  man)  hoc  ne  feceris !  de  rep.  i,  19, 
32  Si  me  audietis,  adulescentes,  solem  alterum  ne  metuerUis!  de 
leg.  2,  15,  36  (Atticus,  replying  sharply  to  Marcus)  Tu  vero  istam 
Romae  legem  rogato :  nobis  nostras  ne  ademeris/  Ac.  2,  40,  125 
(in  conversation  with  LucuUus  at  a  familiar  gathering  of  friends) 
Tu  vero  ista  ne  asciveris  neve  fueris  commenticiis  rebus  adsensus ! 
Tusc.  disp.  I,  47,  112  (replying  in  a  deprecatory  tone  to  a  sug- 
gestion that  has  just  been  made)  Tu  vero  istam  ne  reliqueris! 
pro  Mur.  31,  65  (quotation  from  the  supposed  command  of  a 
teacher  to  his  pupil)  misericordia  commotus  ne  sis!  (though  sis 
alone  might  be  looked  upon  as  the  verb  here,  in  which  case  the 
construction  would  belong  to  the  other  class);  Par.  Sto.  5,  3,  41 
(in  a  vigorous  protest)  tu  posse  te  dicito,  debere  ne  dixeris.  An 
unusually  earnest  and  energetic  tone  is  to  be  found  in  each  one 
of  these.  Notice,  for  instance,  the  strongly  contrasted  pronouns 
and  the  other  indications  of  strong  feeling.  The  reason  why  this 
construction  is  so  rare  in  classical  productions  is  that  they  are,  for 
the  most  part,  of  a  very  dignified  character.  The  prohibitions 
they  contain  are  therefore  commonly  expressed  by  noli  with  the 
infinitive  (a  construction  that  occurs  123  times  in  Cicero,  twice  in 
Nepos,  three  times  in  Sallust,  three  times  in  Caesar),  or  by  cave 
with  the  present  subjunctive  (30  times  in  Cicero,  once  in  Nepos, 
once  in  Sallust),  or  by  vide  ne  with  the  subjunctive  (18  times  in 
Cicero,  once  in  Nepos).  Next  to  noli,  the  most  common  form  of 
prohibition  in  Cicero  is,  I  should  say,  some  circumlocution  like 
peto,  rogo,  oro,  etc.,  followed  by  ne  and  the  subjunctive,  but  I 
have  made  no  attempt  to  collect  the  instances.  Even  ne  with 
the  present  subjunctive  is  less  deferential  than  the  constructions 
just  named ;  it  smacks  somewhat  of  its  sister  construction,  and  so 
is  comparatively  rare.  Where,  next  to  the  early  comedy,  do  we 
find  the  most  familiar  tone  prevailing  ?  One  may  answer,  without 
hesitation,  in  the  Letters  of  Cicero.  And  it  is  in  these  Letters 
that  most  of  the  instances  oine  with  the  perfect  in  classical  times 
are  found.  It  is  also  a  significant  fact,  and  one,  I  think,  not 
hitherto  noticed,  that  all  but  2  of  the  14  instances  here  found 
are  addressed  to  his  bosom-friends  or  relatives :  8  of  them  to 
Atticus,  2  to  his  brother  Quintus,  and  2  to  his  intimate  legal 
friend  Trebatius,  upon  whom  he  was  always  sharpening  his  wits 
and  whom  he  never  lost  an  opportunity  to  abuse,  good-naturedly, 
to  his  face.     One  of  the  two  exceptions  is  in  a  very  impassioned 


i8 

passage  of  a  letter  written  by  Brutus  to  Cicero,  ad  Brut,  i,  i6,  6; 
the  other  is  in  ad  fam.  7,  25,  2,  where  Cicero  is  enjoining  upon 
Fadius  Gallus,  in  the  most  urgent  terms  possible,  not  under  any 
circumstances  to  reveal  a  certain  secret.  To  his  other  corres- 
pondents he  uses  only  noli  or,  in  two  instances,  cave  with  the 
present  subjunctive,  e.  g.  to  Servius  Sulpicius  (ad  fam.  4,  4,  3),  to 
Lucius  Mescinius  (ad  fam,  5,  21,  i),  to  Cornificius  (ad  fam.  12,  30, 
I ;  12,  30,  3).  to  Gallus  (ad  fam.  7,  25,  i ;  7,  25,  2),  to  Brut,  i,  6 
twice;  i,  7;  i,  13;  i,  15,  i  twice,  etc.  Excepting  the  passionate 
remonstrance  referred  to  in  a  letter  written  by  Brutus,  the  corres- 
pondents of  Cicero  use  only  noli  when  addressing  him,  e.  g.  ad 
fam.  4,  5,  5 ;  7,  29;  12,  16,  i.  In  the  treatise  ad  Herennium,  I 
might  add,  ne  never  occurs  in  prohibition,  though  other  forms  of 
prohibition  are  common,  e.  g.  noli  in  4,  30,  41 ;  4,  41,  53  twice; 
4,  52,  65  ;  4,  54,  67 ;  cavCy  or  vide,  ne  with  the  present  subjunctive 
in  4,  3,  5 ;  4,  4,  6.  Following  is  a  complete  list  of  the  instances 
of  ^<?  with  the  perfect  in  Cicero's  Letters,  nearly  all  of  which  show 
great  earnestness,  either  real  or  assumed:  ad  Att.  2,  5,  i  Etiam 
hercule  est  in  non  accipiendo  non  nulla  gloria:  qua  re  si  quid 
e€o<l)dvris  tecum  forte  contulerit  ne  omnino  repudiaris ;  ib.  5,  11, 
7  nam  illam  vo[iavhp\.a  (?)  me  excusationem  ne  acceperis;  ib.  9,  9, 
I  Quod  vereri  videris  ne  mihi  tua  consiiia  displiceant,  me  vero 
nihil  delectat  aliud  nisi  consilium  et  litterae  tuae;  qua  re  fac,  ut 
ostendis :  ne  destiteris  ad  me  quicquid  tibi  in  mentem  venerit 
scribere :  mihi  nihil  potest  esse  gratius  (Notice  the  emphatic 
position  of  words,  indicative  of  strong  feehng) ;  ib.  10,  13,  i 
Epistola  tua  gratissima  fuit  meae  Tulliae,  et  mehercule  mihi: 
semper  secum  aliquam  (?)  adferunt  tuae  litterae.  Scribes  igitur 
ac,  si  quid  ad  spem  poteris,  ne  demiseris,  Tu  Antoni  leones 
pertimescas  cave;  ad  Brut,  i,  16,  6  Me  vero  posthac  ne  commen- 
daveris  Caesari  tuo,  ne  te  quidem  ipsum,  si  me  audies.  Valde 
care  aestimas  tot  annos,  quot  ista  aetas  recipit,  si  propter  eam 
causam  puero  isti  supplicaturus  es ;  ad  fam.  7,  17,  2  Hunc  tu 
virum  nactus,  si  me  aut  sapere  aliquid  aut  velle  tua  causa  putas, 
ne  dimiseris;  ib.  7,  25,  2  Sed  heus  tu  .  .  .  secreto  hoc  audi,  tecum 
habeto,  ne  Apellae  quidem,  liberto  tuo,  dixeris ;  ad  Quint,  i,  4,  5 
Sin  te  quoque  inimici  vexare  coeperint,  ne  cessaris ;  non  enim 
gladiis  tecum,  sed  litibus  agetur ;  ad  Att.  i,  9  «^  dubitaris  mittere 
('Do  not  for  a  moment  hesitate,'  etc.);  ib.  4,  15,  6  Veni  in  spec- 
taculum,  primum  magno  et  aequabili  plausu — sed  hoc  7ie  curaris ; 
ego  ineptus,  qui  scripserim ;   ib.  7,  3,  2  Quin  nunc  ipsum  non 


19 

dubitabo  rem  tantam  abicere,  si  id  erit  rectius;  utrumque  vero 
simul  agi  non  potest,  et  de  triumpho  ambitiose  et  de  re  publica 
libere.  Sed  ne  dubitaris  quin,  quod  honestius,  id  mihi  futurum 
sit  antiquius ;  ad  Quintum  fratrem  2,  10,  5  locum  autem  illius  de 
sua  egestate  ne  sis  aspernatus  (Cicero  is  here  speaking  of  Caesar, 
which  sufficiently  accounts  for  his  vigorous  tone).  In  ad  Att.  16, 
2,  5  Planco  et  Oppio  scripsi  equidem,  quoniam  rogaras,  sed,  si 
tibi  videbitur,  7ie  necesse  habueris  reddere,  we  should  have 
expected  the  present.  Here,  however,  it  might  be  noticed  that 
the  first  hand  of  the  Medicean  manuscript  (M),  the  highest 
possible  manuscript  authority  and  in  fact  the  only  authority  of 
much  importance,  omits  the  ne.  In  ad  fam.  7,  18,  3  Tu,  si  inter- 
vallum  longius  erit  mearum  litterarum,  ne  sis  admiratus,  sis  is 
probably  the  verb,  admiratus  being  here  used  adjectively,  as  in 
ad  Att.  9,  12,  2  sum  admiratus  (*I  am  surprised'),  and  in  Off.  2, 
10,  35  ne  quis  sit  admiratus  etc. 

Most  of  the  instances  to  be  found,  in  the  prose  of  classical 
times,  oine  with  the  2d  person  present  subjunctive  in  prohibitions 
have  been  cited  earlier  in  this  paper.  The  following  should  be 
added  to  complete  the  list :  Cic.  Cato  Maior  10,  33  ne  requiras; 
ib.  ad  Att.  2,  24,  i  ne  sis  {perturbatus  perhaps  here  used  adjec- 
tively, like  the  following  sollicitus  and  anxius).  There  are  a 
large  number  of  other  passages  that  might  well  be  explained 
as  instances  of  the  same  use,  e.  g.  ad  Att.  14,  i,  2  Tu,  quaeso, 
quicquid  novi  scribere  ne  pigrere  (which  Madvig,  Opus.  2, 
p.  107,  and  Kiihner,  Lat.  Gram.  II,  §47,  8,  actually  explain  as 
independent  of  quaeso)  \  Phil.  II  5,  10;  pro  Cluentio  2,  6  ne 
repugnetis  etc.  That  ne  with  the  present  subjunctive  is  not 
more  common  in  the  best  prose  is  due  to  an  increasing  fond- 
ness for  the  ^(^//-construction.  Ne  with  the  present  was  a  mild 
prohibition  as  compared  with  ne  with  the  perfect,  but  it  was 
less  deferential  and  respectful  than  noli,  and  in  dignified  address 
noli  accordingly  became  the  regular  usage.  In  early  comedy 
there  was  comparatively  little  call  for  the  more  calm  and  dignified 
forms  of  expression,  and  there  accordingly  we  find  that  noli  is 
comparatively  rare.  It  occurs  in  Plautus  and  Terence  only  in 
addressing  some  one  who  must  be  gently  handled.  It  is  found 
only  where  the  tone  is  one  of  pleading — it  never  conveys  an 
order,  in  the  strict  sense  of  that  word.  It  is  almost  never  used 
by  a  superior  in  addressing  an  inferior.  In  the  two  or  three 
exceptions  to  this  rule,  the  superior  has  some  motive  for  adopting 


30 

the  mild  tone.  Those  who  wish  to  test  the  truth  of  these  remarks 
are  referred  to  the  following  complete  list  of  the  instances  of  noli 
in  Plautus  and  Terence:  Plant.  Am.  520;  540;  Capt.  845;  Miles 
372;  1 1 29;  Trin.  627;  Asin.  417;  Cure.  128;  197;  697;  Most. 
800;  Merc.  922;  Poen.  367 ;  871;  1319;  Persa  619;  831;  True. 
664;  Cas.  II  2,  32;  II  6,  35;  Cist.  I  I,  59;  I  I,  109;  Ten  And. 
385;  685;  Phorm.  556;  Hec.  109;  316;  467;  654;  Adelph.  781. 
As  regards  the  different  forms  of  prohibition  in  classical  times, 
nothing  can  show  more  strikingly  the  difference  in  feeling  between 
ne  with  the  perfect  subjunctive  and  noli  with  the  infinitive  than  a 
comparison  of  the  classes  of  verbs  found  in  the  two  constructions. 
Of  the  123  instances  of  noli'm  Cicero,  76  of  them  are  used  with 
verbs  indicating  some  mental  action,  or  some  action  which  would 
be  as  unlikely  to  be  accompanied  by  emotion  on  the  part  of  the 
speaker,  e.  g.  *Do  not  suppose,'  *Do  not  be  afraid,'  etc.^  In  the 
Letters,  21  out  of  the  32  instances  are  verbs  of  this  sort.  Of  the 
30  instances  oi  cave  with  the  subjunctive,  17  are  of  this  sort.'^  In 
the  Letters  the  proportion  is  11  out  of  18.  A  glance  at  the 
instances  above  cited  of  ne  with  the  present  subjunctive  will  show 
that  most  of  the  verbs  in  this  construction  also  belong  to  the 
same  class.  We  found  the  same  state  of  things  also  in  Plautus 
and  Terence.  Now,  side  by  side  with  these  facts  put  the  fact 
that  in  the  whole  history  of  the  Latin  language,  from  the  earliest 
times  down  to  and  including  Livy,  there  are  to  be  found  in  pro- 
hibitions expressed  by  ne  with  the  perfect  subjunctive  only  two, 
or  at  most  three,  verbs  denoting  mere  mental  activity,  viz.  ne 
dubitaris  (Cic.  ad  Att.  7,  3,  2),  ne  metueritis  (de  rep.  i,  19,  32),  ne 

1  Plane.  18,  44  ;  19,  46  ;  19,  47  ;  20,  50  ;  21,  51 ;  22,  52  ;  22,  53  ;  Balb.  28,  64  ; 
Pis.  20,  46 ;  27,  66 ;  Marcel.  8,  25  ;  Ligar.  11,  33;  12,  37 ;  Phil.  2,  28,  69  ;  7,  8, 
25  ;  12,  6,  14;  de  or.  2,  47,  194;  2,  61,  250;  2,  66,  268;  Brut.  33,  125,  40,  148  ; 
nat.  deor.  2, 18,  47;  Cato  22,  79  ;  Rose.  Am.  24,  67  ;  in  Caec.  div.  12,  39;  Verr. 
2,  I,  16,  42;  2,  I,  49,  128  (twiee);  2,  2,  11,  29;  2,  2,  51,  125  ;  2,  3,  5,  11  ;  2,  3, 
46,  109;  2,4,  5,  10;  2,  4,  51, 113  (twice);  2,  5,  5,10;  2,  5,  18,45;  2,5,  53.1391 
de  re  pub.  i,  41,  65  ;  2,  3,  7;  Orat.  prid.  quam  in  exsil.  iret  i,  i ;  Tuse.  disp. 
5,  5,  14;  imp.  Pomp.  23,  68;  agr.  2,  6,  16;  2,  28,  77;  Mur.  19,  38;  37,  80; 
Flacc.  20,  48;  42,  105;  SuU.  16,  47  (twice);  27,  76;  de  dom.  57,  146;  de 
havusp.  response  28,  62 ;  ad  Att.  i,  4,  3  ;  2,  i,  5  ;  5,  2,  3 ;  6,  I,  3  ;  6,  I,  8  ;  8,  12, 
is;  9i  7.  5;  12,  9;  13.  29,2;  15,6,2;  16,  15;  ad  Brut,  i,  13,  2;  ad  fam.  4,4, 
3;  4,  5,  5;  5,  21,  I ;  7,  25,  i;  12,  16,  i;  12,  33;  ad  Quint,  i,  2,  4,  14;  3,  6,  7 
(twice). 

''Ligar.  5,  14;  5,16  (twiee);  de  rep.  i,  42,  65;  de  leg.  2,  3,  7 ;  Tuse.  disp. 
5,7,19:  ad  Att.  5,  21,  5  ;  7,  20,  i ;  8,  15,  A  2 ;  9,  9,  4 ;  9,  19,  i  ;  10,  13,  i ;  ad 
tirut.  I,  15,  I  (twice);  ad  fam.  7,  6;  7,  25,  2;  9,  24,4. 


21 

cur  arts  (ad  Att.  4,  15,  6)/  The  only  other  verbs  (four  or  five  in 
number)  dealing  with  mental  action  distinctly  involve  also  other 
sorts  of  action.  These  are  ne  sis  aspernatus  (ad  Quint,  fratrem  2, 
10.  5)>  w^  asciveris  neve  fueris  adsensus  (Ac.  2,  40,  125),  commotus 
ne  sis  (pro  Mur.  31,  65),  and  ne  repudiaris  (ad  Att.  2, 5,  i).  There 
are  not  so  many  objections  to  regarding  7tec  existimaveris  in  Livy 
21,  43,  II  as  a  prohibition  as  there  would  be  in  Ciceronian  Latin, 
though  it  is  extremely  doubtful  even  here.  In  any  case,  nothing 
of  the  sort  should  cause  surprise  in  Livy,  as  he  marks  the  begin- 
ning of  a  general  breaking  up  of  the  strict  canons  observed  in  the 
best  period.  Livy  (3,  2,  9)  even  goes  so  far  as  to  say  ne  timeie^ 
which,  in  prose,  would  have  shocked  the  nerves  of  Cicero  beyond 
expression.  The  almost  entire  avoidance,  until  after  the  Augustan 
period,  of  this  whole  class  of  verbs  expressing  mere  mental 
activity  in  prohibitions  expressed  by  ne  with  the  perfect  subjunc- 
tive, and  its  remarkable  frequency  in  other  forms  of  prohibitions, 
can,  it  seems  to  me,  be  explained  only  in  one  way.  Verbs  of  this 
class  are,  from  their  very  nature,  such  as  would  not  often  be 
accompanied  with  passionate  feeling,  and  so  are  confined  to  the 
milder  forms  of  expression.  And  this,  it  seems  to  me,  goes  far 
to  establish  my  contention  that  ne  with  the  perfect  subjunctive  is 
reserved  for  prohibitions  that  are  prompted  by  uncontrollable 
emotion,  or  else  that  are  intended  to  be  as  vigorous  as  possible 
in  tone,  either,  as  is  generally  the  case,  from  some  serious  motive, 
or  merely  as  a  bit  of  familiar  pleasantry.  This  tone  is  commonly 
one  of  commanding.  Rarely  it  is  one  of  earnest  entreaty,  though 
in  such  cases  the  prohibition  is  commonly  introduced  by  noli. 
Noli  with  the  infinitive  is  the  expression  best  calculated  to  win 
the  good-will  of  the  hearer,  as  it  merely  appeals  to  him  to 
exercise  his  own  will  (i.  e.  'Be  unwilling'),  or  to  forbear  using  it ; 
while  ne  with  the  perfect  subjunctive  disregards  altogether  the 
will  of  the  person  addressed,  and  insists  that  the  will  of  the 
speaker  be  obeyed. 

"^Ne  necesse  habueris  reddere  (ad  Att.  16,  2,  5)  is  but  poorly  supported  by 
manuscript  evidence.  Even  if  the  reading  is  correct,  as  seems  highly  prob- 
able, the  idea  of  reddere  may  be  said  to  figure  quite  as  prominently  in  the 
prohibition  as  that  of  habtieris.  Such  expressions  as  ne  vos  quidem  timueritis 
(Cic.  Tusc.  Disp.  I,  41,  98),  numquatn  putaveris  (Sail.  lug.  no,  4)  and  nee 
putaveris  (Cic.  Acad.  2,  46,  141)  represent  very  different  uses,  as  I  shall  show- 
in  Part  II  of  my  paper. 


Part  II. 

In  Part  I  of  this  paper  I  confined  myself  exclusively  to  prohi- 
bitions introduced  by  ne,  cave  and  noli.  That  the  clauses  there 
discussed  were  bona  fide  cases  of  prohibition  admitted  of  no 
doubt,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  introduced  by  ne  which  might 
possibly  be  explained  as  dependent.  Unfortunately,  grammars 
are  wont  to  classify  under  the  same  head,  and  with  equal  confi- 
dence, certain  other  forms  of  expression,  many  of  which  can  be 
shown  to  belong  to  very  different  uses  of  the  subjunctive  mood. 
Most  prominent  among  these  are  the  instances  of 

Neque  {nee)  with  the  Perfect  {Aorisf)  Subjunctive, 

Before  proceeding  to  discuss  these  clauses,  let  us  get  them  all 
before  us.  As  my  statistics  for  this  particular  construction  have, 
as  far  as  the  Augustan  poets  are  concerned,  been  rather  hurriedly 
gathered,  I  do  not  feel  sure  that  my  list  contains  all  of  the 
instances  from  those  writers ;  but  the  few  omissions,  if  there  are 
any,  could  not  affect  the  results  reached.  My  statistics  show  that 
the  following  are  the  only  instances  of  the  construction  to  be 
found,  from  the  earliest  times  down  to  the  end  of  the  Augustan 
period,  which  any  one  would  ever  think  of  explaining  as  prohi- 
bitions: Plant.  Capt.  149  Ego  alienus?  alienus  ille?  Ah,  Hegio, 
numquam  istuc  dixis  neque  animum  induxis  tuom  ;  Trin.  627  Sta 
ilico.     Noli  avorsari  neque  te  occtdtassis  mihi^; 

Enn.  Ann.  143  (Baehrens)  nee  mi  aurum  posco  nee  mi  pretium 
dederitis  ; 

Lucil.  Sat.  30  (Baehrens  775)  — wv^_ww_  ^^ neque  barbam 
inmiseris  istam  ! " 

Ter.  And.  392  Hie  reddes  omnia,  quae  nunc  sunt  certa  ei  con- 
silia,  incerta  ut  sient,  sine  omni  periclo :  nam  hoc  hand  dubiumst, 

^  The  videris  in  Plaut.  Mil.  573  (Ne  tu  hercle,  si  te  di  ament,  linguam  com- 
primes  posthac :  etiam  illut  quod  scies  nesciveris  nee  videris  quod  videris)  is 
probably  in  the  future  perfect  indicative  (cf.  the  preceding  comprimes).  This 
use  of  the  future  perfect  is  very  common  in  Plautus  and  Terence. 


23 

quin  Chremes  tibi  non  det  gnatam.  Nee  tu  ea  causa  minueris 
haec  quae  facis,  ne  is  mutet  suam  sententiam;  id.  Haut.  976 
Nemo  accusat,  Syre,  te :  nee  tu  aram  tibi  nee  precatorem  pararis ; 

Cic.  Acad.  2,  46,  141  Nihil  igitur  me  putatis  moveri?  Tam 
moveor  quam  tu,  Luculle,  nee  me  minus  hominem  quam  te 
putaveris;  id.  Fin.  i,  7,  25  Quid  tibi,  Torquate,  .  .  .  quid  tanta 
tot  versuum  memoria  voluptatis  adfert?  Nee  mihi  illud  dixeris: 
•'  Haec  enim  ipsa  mihi  sunt  voluptati  et  erant  ilia  Torquatis  " ;  id. 
pro  Sulla  8,  25  Aut  igitur  doceat  Picentis  solos  non  esse  pere- 
grinos  aut  gaudeat  suo  generi  me  meum  non  anteponere.  Qua 
re  neque  tu  me  peregrinum  posthac  dixeris,  ne  gravius  refutere, 
neque  regem,  ne  derideare;  id.  Brutus  87,  298  nam  de  Crassi 
oratione  sic  existimo,  ipsum  fortasse  melius  potuisse  scribere, 
alium,  ut  arbitror,  neminem  ;  nee  in  hoc  ironiam  dixeris  esse, 
quod  eam  orationem  mihi  magistram  fuisse  dixerim  ;  id.  Rep.  6, 
23,  25  Igitur  alte  spectare  si  voles  atque  hanc  sedem  et  aeternam 
domum  contueri,  neque  te  sermonibus  volgi  dederis  nee  in  prae- 
miis  humanis  spem  posueris  rerum  tuarum ;  id.  ad  Att.  12,  23,  3 
Si  nihil  conficietur  de  Transtiberinis,  habet  in  Ostiensi  Cotta 
celeberrimo  loco,  sed  pusillum  loci,  ad  hanc  rem  tamen  plus 
etiam  quam  satis :  id  velim  cogites.  Nee  tamen  ista  pretia  hor- 
torum  periimueris.  Nee  mihi  iam  argento  nee  veste  opus  est  nee 
quibusdam  amoenis  locis;  id.  ib.  13,  22,  5  Alteris  iam  litteris  nihil 
ad  me  de  Attica ;  sed  id  quidem  in  optima  spe  pono :  illud 
accuso,  non  te,  sed  illam,  ne  salutem  quidem.  At  tu  et  jlli  et 
Piliae  plurimam,  nee  me  tamen  irasci  indicaris ;  id.  ad  Att.  15,  27, 
3  Quod  me  de  Bacchide,  de  statuarum  coronis  certiorem  fecisti, 
valde  gratum,  nee  quicquam  posthac  non  modo  tantum,  sed  ne 
tantulum  quidem  praeterieris ;  id.  ad  fam.  i,  9,  19  .  .  .  recordare 
enim,  quibus  laudationem  ex  ultimis  terris  miseris.  Nee  hoc 
periimueris ;  nam  a  me  ipso  laudantur  et  laudabuntur  idem ;  id. 
ad  Att.  10,  18,  2  Tu  tamen  perge  quaeso  scribere  nee  meas  litteras 
exspeciaris,  nisi  cum  quo  opto  pervenerimus,  aut  si  quid  ex  cursu  ; 

Hor.  Od.  I,  II,  3  Tu  ne  quaesieris  quem  mihi,  quem  tibi  finem 
di  dederint,  Leuconoe,  nee  Babylonios  tempiaris  numeros;  id. 
Sat.  I,  4,  41  Primum  ego  me  illorum  dederim  quibus  esse  poetas 
excerpam  numero :  neque  enim  concludere  versum  dixeris  esse 
satis ;  neque  si  qui  scribat,  uti  nos,  sermoni  propiora,  putes  hunc 
esse  poetam  (cf.  dederim^  vs.  39) ; 

Verg.  Eel.  8,  102  Fer  cineres,  Amarylli,  foras  rivoque  fluenti 
transque  caput  iace,  nee  respexeris ; 


24 

Ovid,  Am.  2,  2,  25  .  .  .  ne  te  mora  longa  fatiget,  inposita  gremio 
stertere  fronte  potes.  Nee  tu  .  .  .  quaesieris ;  id.  H.  8,  23  .  .  . 
nupta  foret  Paridi  mater,  ut  ante  fuit.  Nee  tu  pararis  etc.;  id. 
Epist.  19,  151  Si  nescis,  dominum  res  habet  ista  suum.  Nee  mihi 
eredideris;  id.  Ar.  Am.  i,  733  Arguat  et  macies  animum.  Nee 
.  .  . puiaris  etc.;  id.  ib.  2,  391  Gloria  peccati  nulla  petenda  sui  est. 
Nee  dederis  etc.;  id.  ib.  3,  685  Sed  te  .  .  .  moderate  iniuria  turbet, 
nee  sis  audita  pelice  mentis  inops.  Nee  cito  eredideris  etc.;  id. 
Met  12,  455  Memini  et  venabula  condi  inguine  Nesseis  manibus 
coniecta  Cymeli.  Nee  tu  eredideris  etc.;  id.  Trist.  5,  14,  43  Non 
ex  difficili  fama  petenda  tibi  est.  Nee  te  eredideris  etc.;  id.  ex 
Pont.  I,  8,  29  Ut  careo  vobis,  Scythicas  detrusus  in  oras,  quattuor 
autumnos  Pleias  orta  facit.  Nee  tu  eredideris  etc.;  id.  ib.  4,  10, 
21  Hos  ego,  qui  patriae  faciant  oblivia,  sucos  parte  meae  vitae,  si 
modo  dentur,  em  am !  Nee  tu  eoniuleris  urbem  Laestrygonis 
etc.;  id.  Fasti  6,  807  Par  animo  quoque  forma  suo  respondet  in 
ilia,  et  genus  et  facies  ingeniumque  simul.  Nee  quod  laudamus 
formam  tu  tuvpe  putaris  ; 

Tibull.  2,  2,  13  lam  reor  hoc  ipsos  edidicisse  deos.  Nee  tibi 
malueris  etc.;  id.  4,  i,  7  Est  nobis  voluisse  satis,  nee  munera 
parva  respueris; 

Propert.  3,  13  (20),  33  (Miiller)  .  .  .  tumque  ego  Sisyphio  saxa 
labore  geram.  Nee  tu  supplicibus  me  sis  venerata  tabellis ;  id. 
3,  28,  33  .  .  .  cur  reus  unus  agor?  Nee  tu  virginibus  reverentia 
moveris  ora ; 

Livy  5,  53,  3  ego  contra — nee  id  mirati  sitis,  priusquam  quale 
sit  audieritis — etiam  si  tum  migrandum  fuisset  incolumi  tola  urbe, 
nunc  has  ruinas  relinquendas  non  censerem ;  id.  21,  43,  11  .  .  . 
''hie  dignam  mercedem  emeritis  stipendiis  dabit."  Nee  quam 
magni  nominis  bellum  est,  tam  difficilem  existimariiis  victoriam 
fore ;  id.  23,  3,  3  Clauses  omnis  in  curiam  accipite,  solos,  inermis. 
Nee  quicquam  raptim  aut  forte  temere  egeritis ;  29,  18,  9  Quibus, 
per  vos  fidem  vestram,  patres  conscripti,  priusquam  eorum  scelus 
expietis,  neque  in  Italia  neque  in  Africa  quicquam  rei  gesseritiSy 
ne  .  .  .  luant. 

I  have  included  the  instances  of  this  use  from  Early  Latin  in 
the  above  list,  for  the  sake  of  completeness  and  for  the  purpose  of 
facilitating  comparison  with  what  I  have  to  say  regarding  the 
construction  in  classical  times ;  for  the  following  remarks  will  be 
chiefly  concerned  with  classical  prose.  It  will  be  observed  that 
there  are  twelve  instances  of  this  use  in  Cicero — five  of  them 


25 

outside  of  his  Letters.  It  seems  to  have  been  taken  for  granted 
that  these  are  examples  of  the  same  construction  as  that  in  the 
prohibitive  nefeceris.  Grammars  cite  them  side  by  side  with  the 
last-mentioned  construction,  often  without  so  much  as  a  comment. 
See,  e.g.,  Madvig,  459,  obs.;  Roby,  1602;  Gildersleeve,  266,  rem. 
I ;  Draeger,  Hist.  Synt.,  §149  B  b  (p.  313)  ;  Allen  and  Greenough, 
266  3;  Riemann,  Syntaxe  latine  (Paris,  1890),  p.  483;  Schmalz- 
Landgraf  in  Reisig's  Lat.  Vorlesungen,  p.  482 ;  Schmalz,  Lat. 
Synt.,  §31 ;  Kuhner,  Ausfiihrl.  Gram.  d.  lat.  Sprache,  II,  §§47,  9; 
48,  3 ;  48,  4 ;  etc.,  etc.  And  still  they  bear  upon  their  face  a 
suspicious  look.  What  is  nee  doing  in  such  a  very  pronounced 
and  direct  expression  of  the  will  in  Cicero  ?  Apart  from  these 
particular  expressions,  all  grammarians  agree  that  neque  {nee),  in 
the  sense  of  neve  (jieu),  is  extremely  rare  in  classical  prose.  I 
shall  presently  try  to  show  that  it  does  not  occur  at  all  in  any 
voUtive  expression  outside  of  poetry  until  the  beginning  of  the 
period  of  decline,  with  the  possible  exception  of  one  instance  in 
Nepos.  And  still  the  grammars,  even  the  most  recent  of  them, 
would  give  us  to  understand  that  Cicero  (of  all  writers  I),  in 
adding  a  prohibition  in  the  perfect  subjunctive,  invariably,  except 
in  one  passage,  uses  neque  {nee).  Neve  {neu)  with  the  perfect 
subjunctive  occurs  only  once  in  Cicero  in  a  prohibition.  And  we 
are  asked  to  believe  that  neque  {nee)  occurs  twelve  times !  Let 
us  see  whether  such  a  state  of  things  really  exists. 

Evidently  our  best  starting-point  in  attempting  to  discover  to 
what  extent  neque  (nee)  was  used  in  prohibitions  will  be  found  in 
expressions  whose  prohibitive  character  is  beyond  all  question, 
viz.  expressions  in  which  the  verb  is  in  the  imperative,  or,  if  in 
the  subjunctive,  is  preceded  by  another  verb  which  itself  is  intro- 
duced by  ne  or  neve.  The  use  of  ne  or  neve  will  show  beyond  all 
possibility  of  doubt  that  the  mood  of  the  verb  is  volitive  in  char- 
acter. Without  the  presence  of  such  a  ne  or  7ieve,  one  may  often 
claim  the  right  at  least  to  doubt  any  one's  interpretation  of  the 
mood  of  a  given  verb  as  volitive  in  meaning.  For  instance,  when 
Cicero  says  (Ac.  2,  46,  141)  .  .  .  tam  moveor  quam  tu,  Luculle, 
nee  me  minus  hominem  quam  te  putaveris,  there  is  nothing  to 
show  that  7iee  .  .  , putaveris  does  not  mean  'nor  would  you  for  a 
moment  suppose  that  I  am  less  human  than  you,'  But,  if  we  had 
such  a  sentence  as  ne  .  .  .  dixeris,  nee  putaveriSy  we  could  hardly 
escape  the  conclusion  that  nee  putaveris  must  be  in  the  same 
construction  as  ne  dixeris. 


26 

What  is  to  be  said,  then,  of  the  use  of  neque  {nee)  with  the 
imperative  prior  to  the  period  of  Cicero,  in  whom  the  passages 
under  discussion  are  found  ?  Merely  this,  that  it  does  not  once 
occur  in  any  production,  whether  prose  or  poetry,  of  the  whole 
ante- Ciceronian  period.  In  the  same  period  neve  {neu)  with  the 
imperative  occurs  121  times.  These  instances  are  nearly  all  in 
the  laws,  i.  e.  in  prose :  Corpus  Inscriptionum  Lat.  I  28  (three 
times) ;  197  (eight  times)  ;  198  (twelve  times)  ;  199  (three  times)  ; 
200  (thirty-four  times)  ;  204  (five  times)  ;  205  (three  times) ;  206 
(forty-five  times) ;  207  (once) ;  576  (twice) ;  1409  (twice).  Other 
instances  are  XII  Tabulae,  X  i  ne  .  .  .  neve  urito ;  Plant.  Stich. 
20  ne  lacruma  neu  face ;  Cato,  de  agri  cult.  144,  i  neve  facito. 
Sometimes  the  ne  is  repeated :  Ter.  Heaut.  84  and  85  ne  retice, 
ne  verere.  An  examination  of  the  Ciceronian  period  discloses 
the  same  condition  of  things,  except  that  there  does  seem  to  be 
one  clear  instance  of  this  use  of  nee  in  Catullus  8,  10.^  It  still 
remains  very  rare  during  the  first  half  of  the  Augustan  period. 
Horace  has  it  once,  Od.  2,  7,  19.  Possibly  there  are  two  other 
instances  in  Horace,  viz.  Od.  i,  9,  15  Quem  fors  dierum  cumque 
dabit,  lucro  adpone  nee  dulees  amoves  sperne,  puer,  neque  tu 
choreas,  though  here  it  might  be  said  that  the  negatives  connect 
merely  the  substantives,  and  the  negative  idea  for  the  verb  is 
allowed  to  take  care  of  itself;  and  Od.  3,  7,  29  Prima  nocte 
domum  claude  neque  in  vias  sub  cantu  querulae  despice.  In 
this  last  passage  it  may  be  that  it  is  not  so  much  the  idea  of 
despice  that  is  negatived  as  that  oiin  vias.  There  is  no  objection 
to  the  act  of  looking  down,  but  it  must  not  be  in  vias.  This  use 
is  also  very  rare  in  Vergil,  though  neve  with  the  imperative  is 
very  common  in  his  writings.  By  the  time,  however,  of  Tibullus, 
Propertius  and  Ovid,  the  old  distinction  between  neque  (nee)  and 

^  The  following  instances  must  not  be  confused  with  this  use:  Cic.  ad  Att. 
12,  22,  3  Habe  tuom  negotium,  nee  quid  res  mea  familiaris  postulet  sed  quid 
velim  existima;  id.  Leg.  3,  4,  ii  Qui  agent  auspicia  servanto,  auguri  publico 
parento,  promulgata,  proposita,  in  aerario  cognita  agunto,  nee  plus  quant  de 
singulis  rebus  semul  consulunto,  rem  populum  docento  etc.  .  .  .  Censores 
fidem  legum  custodiunto  ;  privati  ad  eos  acta  referunto  nee  eo  magis  lege  liberi 
sunto.  In  the  first  of  these  passages  the  idea  of  the  verb  is  not  negatived  at 
all.  The  meaning  is  '  Think,  not  this,  but  that.'  In  the  second  passage, 
similarly,  the  negative  spends  its  force  upon  plus  quam  etc.,  and  the  meaning 
is  'they  are  to  consult  not  more  than  once.'  In  the  third  case,  likewise,  the 
meaning  is  'and  not  on  this  account  (whatever  other  grounds  there  may  be) 
are  they  to  be  free,'  etc.  Only  the  first  of  these  passages  gives  us  the  words 
of  Cicero,  the  others  being  quotations  made  by  him  from  laws. 


27 

neve  (neu)  had  broken  down,  and  the  one  was  used  about  as  freely 
as  the  other  with  the  imperative.  But  from  first  to  last  the  use 
remained  a  poetical  license.^ 

The  above  facts  in  themselves  are  enough  to  prejudice  us  very 
decidedly  against  explaining  any  neque  (nee)  in  Cicero  as  intro- 
ducing a  prohibition.  But  let  us  now  turn  to  neque  {nee)  used  in 
prohibitions  expressed  by  the  subjunctive.  As  before  pointed 
out,  we  can  be  sure  that  the  subjunctive  in  such  cases  is  hortatory 
in  character  only  when  ne  or  neve  (neu)  has  preceded.  How 
often,  then,  does  neque  {nee)  occur  in  such  clearly  prohibitive 
uses  of  the  subjunctive  mood?  Not  once  in  prose  from  the 
earliest  times  till  after  the  Augustan  period,  and  only  once  in 
direct  address  in  poetry,^  Horace  being  again  the  poet  who  first 
ventures  to  make  the  innovation  (Od.  i,  ii,  2).^  When  a  writer 
wishes  to  add  a  second  prohibition  to  one  already  introduced  by 
ne,  or  neve,  he  does  so  sometimes  by  neu:  Plant.  Merc.  396  ne 
duas  neu  dixeris;  id.  Poen.  18  ff.  ne  sedeat,  neu  mutiiant,  neu 
obambulet,  neu  ducat;  id.  ib.  30  Ne  sitiant  neve  obvagiant;  id.  38  ne 
detur  neve  extrudaniur ;  Cato,  de  agri  cult.  5,  4 ;  ib.  38 ;  ib.  83 ; 
ib.  143;  Cic.  Ac.  2,  40,  125  ne  asciveris  neve  fueris  adsensus; 
etc.;  sometimes  by  aut:  Plant.  Cure.  539  Ne  facias  aut  censeas ; 
Ten  Eun.  14  Ne  frustretur  aut  cogitet;  sometimes  by  the  repe- 
tition of  ne:  Ter.  Haut.  85  ne  retice,  ne  verere;  Cato,  de  agri 
cult.  5,  2. 

Now,  with  all  this  evidence  before  him,  one  should  hesitate  long 
before  explaining  any  neque  {nee)  in  Cicero  as  used  with  a  volitive 
subjunctive.  All  other  possible  interpretations  should  be  tested 
first.  Now  let  us  turn  to  the  passages  from  Cicero  which  have 
prompted  these  remarks.  There  are  twelve  instances  in  Cicero 
of  neque  {nee)  with  the  perfect   subjunctive,  which  have   been 

^  In  Livy  22,  10,  5  Si  id  moritur,  quod  fieri  oportebit,  profanum  esto,  neque 
scelus  esto,  the  meaning  may  be  '  and  it  shall  be  no  scelus.'' 

^Capt.  437  Ne  tu  me  ignores  tuque  te  pro  libero  esse  ducas,  pignus  deseras, 
neque  des  operant  pro  me  ut  huius  reducem  facias  filium  must  not  be  mistaken 
as  illustrating  this  use.  If  neque  here  introduced  a  prohibition,  the  meaning 
would  be  '  and  do  not  give,'  which  would  be  the  direct  opposite  of  the  meaning 
intended.  The  ne  at  the  beginning  forms  the  prohibition  with  des,  as  with 
ignores,  ducas  and  deseras,  and  the  negative  of  neque  merely  reverses  the 
meaning  of  the  word  des.  The  meaning  is  'and  do  not  not  give^  i.  e.  'and  do 
not  fail  to  give,'  =  et  ne  non  des. 

^  With  the  third  person  it  seems  to  occur  at  rare  intervals  as  a  poetic  license, 
e.  g.  Catullus  61,  126. 


28 

looked  upon  as  prohibitions.  In  not  one  of  them  has  anything 
preceded  that  even  suggested  a  prohibition.  Most  of  them  are 
preceded  by  simple  assertions,  or  questions,  in  the  indicative 
mood.  In  those  cases  where  a  subjunctive  has  preceded,  the  nee 
begins  an  entirely  new  sentence,  so  loosely  connected  with  the 
preceding  that  editors  separate  the  two  sentences  with  a  period. 
A  striking  proof  that  this  use  of  the  perfect  subjunctive  with  nee 
is  a  construction  entirely  distinct  from  that  of  ne  with  the  same 
mood  and  tense  is  found  in  the  fact  that  certain  writers  who  never 
use  the  latter  at  all  are  wont  to  make  frequent  use  of  the  former. 
Ne  with  the  perfect  subjunctive  is,  for  instance,  entirely  foreign  to 
Ovid,  but  that  poet,  as  will  be  seen  by  consulting  the  citations 
given  above,  uses  nee  with  the  same  mood  and  tense,  in  sentences 
exactly  similar  in  every  way  to  those  in  Cicero,  at  least  eleven 
times.  The  same  condition  of  things  exists  in  Vergil,  TibuUus 
and  Propertius,  none  of  these  authors  making  any  use  whatever 
oine  with  the  perfect  subjunctive,  whereas  they  present  repeated 
instances  of  nee  with  that  mood  and  tense.  Again,  this  construc- 
tion is  found  in  the  Orations  of  Cicero,  where  ne  with  the  perfect 
is  never  used  except  once  in  a  quotation,  pro  Sulla  8,  25 ;  of  also 
Verr.  2,  i,  54,  141.  But  there  is  other  evidence  perhaps  even 
more  striking  than  this.  It  will  be  remembered  that  we  found, 
prior  to  the  beginning  of  the  period  of  decline,  only  two  or  three 
instances  of  verbs  denoting  merely  mental  activity  used  in  pro- 
hibitions expressed  by  ne  and  the  perfect  subjunctive;  while  in 
all  other  sorts  of  prohibition  such  verbs  were  found  in  large 
numbers.  We  found  conclusive  proof  that  this  form  of  prohi- 
bition was  felt  to  be  unsuited  to  expressing  such  mild  prohibitions 
as  'do  not  think,'  'do  not  believe,'  etc.  Refer  now  to  the  list 
above  given  of  nee  with  the  perfect  subjunctive.  Out  of  the  38 
instances  there  given  of  this  use — a  decidedly  smaller  number 
than  exist  of  ne  with  the  perfect  in  the  same  period — 15  are  of 
just  the  sort  of  verbs  that  are  so  uniformly  absent  from  prohibi- 
tions expressed  by  ne  with  that  tense.  Surely  all  this  looks  as 
though  we  are  on  altogether  different  ground.  We  shall  find 
later  on  that  the  fact  that  so  many  verbs  denoting  mental  activity 
are  found  with  this  use  of  nee  forms  as  strong  an  argument  in 
favor  of  assigning  the  use  to  a  certain  other  class  of  constructions 
as  it  forms  against  classifying  it  in  the  usual  way. 

There  now  remains,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  only  one   possible 
argument  which   those   can   use   who  still   prefer   the   common 


29 

interpretation  of  these  clauses.  It  is  claimed  by  our  Latin 
grammars  that  neque  {nee)  is  occasionally  used  in  Cicero  in  other 
sorts  of  volitive  clauses  where  it  is  equivalent  to  neve  (rieu).  No 
less  an  authority  than  Schmalz  (Revision  of  Krebs'  Antibarbarus, 
II,  p.  121 ;  Revision  of  Reisig's  Vorlesungen,  p.  482)  expresses 
this  view  in  very  distinct  terms.  Now,  some  one  may  say,  if 
Cicero  uses  neque  (jiec)  at  all  in  expressions  of  the  will,  as  in 
purpose  clauses,  there  is  no  reason  why  he  should  not  use  it  in 
any  volitive  expression.  Even  if  the  premises  were  true,  this 
would  hardly  seem  a  fair  conclusion  to  draw  from  them,  but  I 
venture  to  dispute  the  premises  and  to  claim  that  neque  {nee)  is 
never  used  by  Cicero  to  negative  the  subjunctive  in  purpose 
clauses,  or  in  any  other  volitive  clauses.  The  proof  of  this  is 
given  by  Schmalz's  own  statistics,  and  it  is  surprising  that  he 
did  not  see  it. 

Before  taking  up  the  passages  that  have  been  supposed  to 
contain  examples  of  neque  {nee)  in  volitive  clauses,  it  will  be  well 
to  remind  ourselves  of  certain  facts  which  must  be  kept  constantly 
in  mind.  The  most  important  of  these  facts  is  this :  that  every 
purpose  clause  is,  at  the  same  time,  a  result  clause  as  well.  When 
a  man  says  :  *  I  wish  to  train  my  children  properly,  that  they  may, 
in  after  years,  be  honored  citizens,'  their  being  honored  citizens 
is,  to  be  sure,  the  purpose  of  his  training,  but  it  may  also  be 
conceived  of  merely  as  the  future  result  of  that  training.  The 
use  of  the  word  'that'  instead  of  'so  that,'  and  'may'  instead  of 
'  will,'  shows  that  in  this  particular  instance  the  purpose  idea  is 
probably  uppermost  in  the  mind  of  the  speaker.  Suppose  now 
he  says :  '  I  wish  to  train  my  children  properly,  so  that  (i.  e.  to 
train  them  in  such  a  way  that)  they  will,  in  after  years,  be 
honored  citizens.'  The  two  sentences  practically  mean  the 
same  thing,  and  one  might  at  any  time  be  substituted  for  the 
other;  but  in  the  second  the  substitution  of  'so  that'  and  'will* 
shows  that  the  feeling  uppermost  in  the  mind  is  that  of  result. 
In  cases  of  this  sort  the  mind  may  be  fixed  upon  what  will  be 
the  result  of  the  action,  and  the  idea  of  purpose  that  is  implied 
may  be  left  to  take  care  of  itself.  Now,  the  Latin  language 
is  not  fortunate  enough,  except  in  negative  clauses,  to  have 
separate  mechanisms  in  such  cases  to  make  clear  the  predomi- 
nant feeling.  The  Latin  would  express  the  two  ideas  'in  order 
that  they  may'  and  'so  that  (with  the  result  that)  they  will'  in 
exactly  the  same  way.     It  accordingly  very  frequently  happens 


30 

that  it  is  impossible  to  determine  whether  a  clause  introduced  by 
ut  is  to  be  classed  as  a  purpose  clause  or  a  result  clause.  Such, 
for  instance,  are  the  following  sentences :  .  .  .  omni  contentione 
pugnatum  est,  uti  lis  haec  capitis  aestimareiur  (Cic.  Cluent.  41, 
116);  Conscios  interfecit  ut  suom  scelus  celaretur  ('that  his 
crime  might  be  concealed'  or  'so  that  his  crime  was  concealed') ; 
.  .  .  exarsit  dolor.  Urgere  illi,  ut  loco  nos  mover ent;  factus  est 
a  nostris  impetus ;  etc.  It  is  true  that  what  precedes  an  e^/-clause 
commonly  shows  whether  the  coming  «/- clause  is  to  be  felt  as  a 
purpose  clause  or  a  result  clause ;  but  it  is.  also  true  that  it  very 
frequently  does  not.  More  than  that :  it  often  happens  (and  this 
is  of  especial  importance  in  this  connection)  that  what  precedes 
would  lead  one  to  expect  that  a  result  clause  is  to  follow,  when  a 
final  clause,  or  some  other  kind  of  volitive  clause,  actually  does 
follow.  Such  a  sentence  is  found,  for  instance,  in  Ter.  JPhorm. 
975  Hisce  ego  illam  dictis  ita  tibi  incensam  dabo,  utne  restinguas, 
lacrimis  si  extillaveris.  The  expression  ita  tibi  incensam  dabo 
('I  will  render  her  so  enraged  at  you')  might  lead  one  to  expect 
the  thought  to  be  completed  by  a  clause  of  result,  viz.  ut  non 
restinguas  etc.  =  '  that  you  will  not  appease  her  anger,  if  you  cry 
your  eyes  out.'  Instead  of  that,  the  thought  is  shifted,  and  the 
sentence  is  completed,  as  the  ne  clearly  shows,  by  an  expression 
of  the  will.  The  meaning  of  the  passage  then  is:  'I  will  make 
her  so  enraged  at  you,  that  you  shall  not.  ('shall,'  instead  of 'will,' 
denoting  determination  rather  than  mere  futurity)  appease  her 
anger,'  etc.^ 

Such  expressions  of  determination,  purpose  and  the  like,  where 
a  result  clause  might  commonly  be  expected,  are  not  at  all  infre- 
quent. Such  a  shifting  of  feeling  cannot,  of  course,  be  detected 
when  the  subordinate  clause  is  affirmative ;  but  where  that  clause 
is  negatived,  the  choice  between  the  negatives  ne  and  7ion  will 
show,  beyond  all  question,  the  predominant  feeling  of  the  clause. 
I  have  made  no  attempt  to  collect  passages  illustrating  this 
particular  point,  but  Brix  has  made  a  collection  of  such  passages 

^  I  should  not  deem  it  necessary  to  stop  to  interpret  the  ne  in  this  and 
similar  passages,  had  not  so  distinguished  a  scholar  as  Brix,  in  my  opinion, 
wholly  misunderstood  it.  Misled  by  preconceived  notions  as  to  what  ought 
to  follow  such  expressions  as  ita  tibi  incensam  dabo,  he  makes  the  statement 
(ad  Plant.  Mil.  149)  that  tie  and  ut  ne  are  sometimes  used  "  nicht  nur  in  Final-, 
sondern  auch  in  Consecutivsatzen." 


31 

from  Plautus  and  Terence  in  his  note  on  Plaut.  Mil.  Gl.  149.^  In 
any  one  of  these  passages,  all  of  which  are  cited  and  discussed  in 
my  note  appended  below,  ut  non,  instead  of  ne  or  ut  ne,  would  be 
perfectly  possible  and  would,  in  fact,  have  been  expected,  but  the 
use  of  ne,  or  ut  ne,  shows  that  the  contents  of  the  w^clause  were 
looked  upon  not  primarily  as  a  result  of  anything,  but  rather  as 

^  Brix  cites  the  passages  as  illustrations  of  the  consecutive  use  of  ne  and  ut 
ne,  but  it  will  be  noticed  that  in  each  case  the  ne,  or  the  ut  ne,  may,  without 
violence,  and  in  fact  without  the  least  difficulty,  be  interpreted  as  involving 
in  some  form  a  distinct  expression  of  the  will;  and,  if  this  is  the  case,  surely 
there  can  be  no  possible  excuse  for  explaining  it  differently.  Here  are  the 
passages,  in  the  order  in  which  Brix  gives  them:  Mil.  Gl.  149  .  .  .  eum  ita 
faciemus  ut,  quod  viderit,  ne  viderit,  '  will  manage  him  so  that  he  shall  not  have 
seen,  i.  e.  shall  not  think  that  he  has  seen,'  etc.  ('shall  not,'  instead  of  'will 
not,'  implying  that  the  act  is  Willed  by  the  subject  of  faciemus) ;  id.  Capt.  738 
Atque  hunc  me  velle  dicite  ita  curarier,  ne  qui  deterius  huic  sit  quam  quoi 
pessumest ;  id.  Most.  377  Satin'  habes,  si  ego  advenientem  ita  patrem  faciam 
tuom,  non  modo  ne  intro  eat,  verum  etiam  ut  fugiat  longe  ab  aedibus?  id. 
Bacch.  224  Adveniat  quando  volt  atque  ita  ne  sit  morae  ;  id.  Capt.  267  ne  id 
quidem  involucri  inicere  yolnit,  vestem  ut  ne  in^uinet/  id.  Men.  iioo  Prome- 
ruisti  ut  ne  quid  ores,  quod  velis  quin  impetres ;  id.  Trin.  105  Est  atque  non 
est  mihi  in  manu,  Megaronides:  quin  dicant,  non  est:  merito  utne  dicant,  id 
est ;  id.  Mil.  Gl.  726  Ita  me  di  deaeque  ament,  aequom  fuit  deos  paravisse, 
uno  exemplo  ne  omnes  vitam  viverent ;  Ter.  Hec.  839  Ad  pol  me  fecisse 
arbitror,  ne  id  merito  mihi  eveniret.  It  is  true  that  in  the  instances,  cited  by 
Brix,  oi  potin  ut  ne,  the  introduction  of  a  volitive  feeling  is  somewhat  surpris- 
ing, but  such  a  turn  of  the  thought  is  perfectly  intelligible  and  offers  not  the 
slightest  excuse  for  supposing  that  ne  is  here  used  in  the  sense  of  ncn.  (That 
such  a  use  did  once  exist  admits  of  no  doubt  [cf.«<? .  .  ,  quidem,  ne-scio  etc.],  but 
reminiscences  of  this  use  are  not  found  in  cases  like  those  under  discussion.) 
In  Men.  606  Potin  ut  mihi  molestus  ne  sis,  there  is  a  fusing  together  of  two 
expressions ;  Potesne  ?  mihi  molestus  ne  sis !  The  feeling  that  prompts  the 
speaker's  words  here  may  be  expressed  by  'Cease  your  annoyance,  can't  you?' 
We  might  put  these  same  words  into  the  form  of  a  question  pure  and  simple : 
'Can't  you  cease  your  annoyance?'  and  if  they  were  uttered  with  the  proper 
emphasis  and  tone,  the  hearer  would  understand  them  at  once  as  a  command, 
and  not  at  all  as  a  question  asking  for  information.  In  cases  like  the  above, 
then,  the  choice  of  ne  instead  of  non  is  determined  by  the  feeling  of  the 
speaker,  without  regard  to  the  grammatical  form  in  which  the  sentence  is  cast. 
A  similar  phenomenon  is  found  in  the  use  of  quin.  This  word  really  means 
'why  not?'  and  should,  strictly  speaking,  take  the  indicative,  as  in  Ter. 
Heaut.  832  Quin  accipis?  But  'why  don't  you  take  it?'  under  certain  circum- 
stances is  felt  as  really  meaning  '  take  it ! ',  and  in  such  cases  quin  is  frequently 
found  with  the  imperative,  as  in  Ter.  And.  45  Quin  tu  die,  regardless  of  the 
fact  that  quin  is,  or  was,  an  interrogative.  Similar  phenomena  are  found  also 
in  Greek,  where  we  find  jui^  or  fir^di  used  even  with  the  future  indicative  in 


32 

an  expression  of  somebody's  will.  The  idea  of  result  is  in  most 
cases  present,  but  the  mind  is  fixed  primarily  upon  the  idea  of 
will  that  accompanies  it.  Clauses  similar  to  those  cited  from 
Plautus  and  Terence  are  not  uncommon  in  the  best  classical 
prose  and  poetry,  as  will  be  seen  by  consulting  Draeger's  Hist. 
Synt.  II,  §410. 

Now,  if  volitive  clauses  are  so  common  where  result  clauses 
might  be  expected,  we  should  not  be  greatly  surprised  if  result 
clauses  are  occasionally  found  where  purpose  clauses  might  be 
expected,  especially  since  the  ideas  of  purpose  and  result  are, 
confessedly,  so  closely  associated.  And  it  is  the  failure  to  recog- 
nize this  fact  that  has  led  grammarians  to  assert  that  neque  (nee) 
is  occasionally  used  in  final  clauses.  As  intimated  above,  the 
latest  champions  of  the  view  that  this. use  is  found  in  Cicero  are 
Schmalz  and  Landgraf,  who  express  it  in  their  revision  of  Reisig's 
Vorlesungen,  p.  482.  But  they  greatly  damage  their  own  side  of 
the  question  by  certain  concessions  which  they  make.  They  even 
lay  stress  upon  the  fact  that  neque  (nee')  is  never  used  in  a  clause 
introduced  by  ne,  neve  (neu)  being  the  invariable  word  in  such 
cases.  Again,  in  Schmalz's  revision  of  Krebs'  Antibarbarus  he 
says:  "An  dieser  Regel,  dass  nee  nie  bei  Cicero  zur  Fortsetzung 
von  ne  dient,  muss  unbedingt  festgehalten.'  This  is  true,  despite 
the  bare  assertion  of  Draeger  in  his  Hist.  Synt.,  §543,  7.  Schmalz 
might  have  made  his  statement  even  more  sweeping  and  said  that 
such  a  use  of  neque  (7iec)  does  not  occur  anywhere  in  the  best 
classical  prose.  With  the  exception  of  one  passage  in  Nepos 
(Pausanias  4,  6),  it  remains  a  strictly  poetical  license,  and  ex- 
tremely rare  besides,  until  the  time  of  Livy.  Now,  side  by  side 
with  this  fact,  let  us  put  certain  other  facts  to  which  reference  has 

questions  which  imply  a  prohibition,  e.  g.  Soph.  Tr.  1183  Oi  Qaaaov  olaeig  //^d' 
cnricT^aeig  kfiol  'will  you  not  extend  your  hand  and  not  distrust  me?'  This 
question  implies  a  prohibition, '  extend  your  hand  and  do  not  distrust  me^  and 
the  fact  that  the  speaker  felt  it  as  such  accounts  for  his  using  iir}&t  instead  of 
ov6i,  which  the  future  indicative  would  otherwise  call  for  (cf.  Goodwin,  Moods 
and  Tenses,  §299).  Such  a  shifting  of  the  thought  inside  of  a  sentence  would 
of  course  be  more  common  in  colloquial  language  than  in  dignified  styles.  It 
is  seen  again  in  Persa  286  Potin  ut  molestus  ne  sis?  In  Pseud.  636  Potest  ut 
alii  ita  arbitrentur  et  ego  ut  ne  credam  tibi,  the  feeling  must  be  '  It  is  possible 
that  others  think  so  (that  you  are  honest)  and  that  I  nevertheless  am  not  to 
trust  you,'  implying  that,  from  some  source  or  other,  he  has  received  the 
warning  ne  credas  'Do  not  trust  him.'  This  warning  would,  from  his  own 
point  of  view,  become  ne  credam  '  I  am  not  to  trust  you,'  in  which,  of  course, 
the  volitive  feeling  would  still  remain. 


33 

been  made.  We  found  that  the  clauses  now  under  discussion 
are  really  known  to  be  primarily  volitive  in  character  only  when 
they  are  introduced,  or  accompanied,  by  ne  or  neve.  But  clauses 
thus  introduced,  or  accompanied,  by  7ie  or  neve,  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  they  occur  everywhere  very  frequently,  present  not  a 
single  instance,  in  the  best  prose,  of  a  second  verb  added  by 
neque  {nee),  such  verbs  being  invariably  added  by  neve  (neu). 
Is  not  the  inference  clear?  The  few  «/-clauses  continued  by 
neque  (nee)  thdit.  have  been  supposed  to  be  purpose  clauses  are 
to  be  interpreted  as  laying  stress  rather  upon  the  result  idea. 
Let  us  apply  the  interpretation  I  have  suggested  to  the  clauses 
in  question,  bearing  constantly  in  mind  the  serious  objection  I 
have  pointed  out  to  the  common  interpretation : 

Cic.  ad  fam.  9,  2,  3  Ac  mihi  quidem  iam  pridem  venit  in 
mentem  bellum  esse  aliquo  exire,  ut  ea  quae  agebantur  hie 
quaeque  dicebantur,  nee  viderem  nee  audirem,  i.  e.  *  to  escape  to 
some  place  where  I  should  no  longer  see,  or  hear,'  etc.  ('the 
result  of  which  flight  would  be  that  I,'  etc.) ; 

in  Caecil.  16,  52  qui  si  te  recte  monere  volet,  suadebit  tibi  ut 
hinc  discedas  neque  mihi  verbum  ullum  respondeas,  i.  e.  'will 
advise  you  in  such  a  way  as  to  result  in  your  departing  without 
saying  a  word  in  reply'; 

Verr.  II  2,  17,  41  Illi  eum  commonefaciunt  ut  utatur  instituto 
suo  7iec  cogat  ante  horam  decimam  de  absente  secundum  prae- 
sentem  iudicare ;  impetrant,  i.  e.  'they  earnestly  plead  with  him, 
with  the  result  that  he  follows  his  usual  custom  and  does  not 
compel,  etc.;  they  thus  win  their  point'; 

de  off.  2,  21,  73  In  primis  autem  videndum  erit  ei,  qui  rem 
publicam  administrabit,  ut  suom  quisque  teneat  neque  de  bonis 
privatorum  publice  deminutio  Jiat,  i.  e.  'he  will  have  to  see  to  it 
and  bring  about  the  result  that,'  etc.; 

de  ofl*.  I,  29,  102  Efficiendum  autem  est  ut  adpetitus  ratronil 
oboediant  eamque  neque  praecurrant  nee  propter  pigritiam  aut ; 
ignaviam  deserant,  where  efficiendum  calls  particular  attention  tO/ 
the  result ; 

Lael.  12,  40  Nulla  est  igitur  excusatio  peccati,  si  amici  causa- 
peccaveris ;  nam,  cum  conciliatrix  amicitiae  virtutis  opinio  fuerit, 
difficile  est  amicitiam  manere,  si  a  virtute  defeceris.  .  .  .  aeque 
autem  nefas  sit  tale  aliquid  et  facere  rogatum  et  rogare.  .  .  . 
Haec  igitur  lex  in  amicitia  sanciatur,  ut  neque  rogemus  res  turpis 
7iec  faciamus  rogati.     This  2^/-clause  has  been  wrongly  explained 


34 

as  volitive  in  character,  because  haec  lex  has  been  supposed  to 
look  forward  to  the  ^/-clause,  and  rogemus  and  faciamus  have 
been  looked  upon  as  representing  the  hortatory  subjunctive  of 
the  lex.  But  the  whole  burden  of  thought  in  the  preceding 
chapter  has  been  that  one  should  never  do  wrong  even  for  a 
friend.  Haec  lex  looks  backward  to  the  principle  there  laid 
down,  and  the  meaning  is  '  Let  this,  of  which  we  have  spoken,  be 
an  established  principle  in  friendship,  so  that  we  shall  not  (i.  e. 
with  the  result  that  we  shall  not)  ask  a  friend  to  do  wrong,  nor 
do  it  ourselves  when  asked.' 

The  three  following  passages  may  be  considered  together :  in 
Verr.  II  3,  48,  115  Nunc,  ut  hoc  tempore  ea  .  .  .  praetermittam 
neque  eos  appellem,  a  quibus  omne  frumentum  eripuit,  .  .  .  quid 
lucri  fiat  cognoscite ;  id.  ib.  II  4,  20,  45  Ut  nofi  conferam  vitam 
neque  existimationem  tuam  cum  illius,  hoc  ipsum  conferam,  quo 
tu  te  superiorem  fingis;  id.  de  imp.  Cn.  Pomp.  15,  44  Itaque  ut 
plura  non  dicam  neque  aliorum  exemplis  confirmem  quantum 
auctoritas  valeat  in  bello,  ab  eodem  Cn.  Pompeio  omnium  rerum 
egregiarum  exempla  sumantur.  These  passages  involve  the 
same  idiom  that  we  have  in  our  'so  to  speak.'  It  is  customary 
to  explain  the  idiom  as  one  developed  from  the  idea  of  purpose. 
It  may  well  have  started  with  some  such  idea,  but  it  drifted  so 
far  away  from  its  starting-point  that  oftentimes  there  is  certainly 
no  idea  of  purpose  left.  *So  to  speak'  becomes  merely  an  apolo- 
getic phrase,  meaning  'if  I  may  say  so,'  'so  speaking.'  In  the 
first  of  the  passages  just  cited  the  meaning  is  merely  'Now, 
passing  by  those,  etc.,  for  the  present  and  without  calling  up 
those  from  whom,  etc.,  learn,'  etc.  As  far  as  the  real  logical 
relation  of  such  clauses  to  the  sentences  in  which  they  stand  is 
concerned,  it  is  often  impossible  to  conceive  of  them  as  purpose 
clauses  at  all.  When  they  are  meant  as  such  they  take  ne  as 
their  negative.  But  in  the  clauses  above  there  is  no  such  mean- 
ing. In  the  first  clause  neque  was  used  for  the  same  reason  that 
would  have  made  it  appropriate  if  the  expression  were  praeter- 
miiiens  neque  appellans  (if  I  may  be  allowed  to  use  the  participle 
in  this  way,  to  illustrate  my  point) ;  and  the  choice  of  negative  in 
the  other  clauses  may  be  similarly  explained.  The  difference 
between  such  clauses  as  these,  and  those  introduced  by  ne  with 
which  they  have  been  classed,  will  become  evident  to  any  one 
who  will  examine  such  a  collection  of  instances  as  is  found  in 
Roby,  Lat.  Gram.  1660:  Cic.  ad  fam.  15,  19  ne  longior  sim,  vale, 


35 

'  in  order  that  I  may  not  become  tedious,  I  will  say  good-bye';  id. 
Deiot.  I  Crudelem  Castorem,  ne  dicam  sceleratum  et  impium,  i.  e. 
'I  call  him  crudelem,  in  order  to  avoid  a  harsher  term';  etc.,  etc. 
It  will  be  found  that  the  clauses  in  question  cannot  be  treated  in 
this  manner. 

The  use  of  7ieque  (nee)  to  connect  two  verbs  in  the  volitive 
subjunctive  must  be  very  carefully  distinguished  from  that  in 
which  the  negative  merely  negatives  the  idea  of  a  single  word,  or 
phrase,  in  which  case  the  negative  is  used  without  reference  to 
the  mood  of  the  verb.     Such  clauses  are  the  following : 

Cic.  de  orat.  i,  5,  19  .  .  .  hortemurque  potius  liberos  nostros 
ceterosque,  quorum  gloria  nobis  et  dignitas  cara  est,  ut  animo  rei 
magnitudinem  complectantur  neque  eis  se  aut  praeceptis  aut 
magistris  aut  exercitationibus,  quibus  utuntur  omnes,  sed  aliis 
quibusdam,  quod  expetunt,  consequi  posse  confidant.  Here  the 
negative  in  neque  does  not  negative  the  verb  at  all,  but  merely 
contrasts  the  eis  with  the  following  sed  aliis,  the  verb  itself  being, 
like  complectantur,  used  in  a  positive  sense ; 

Cic.  Fin.  4,  4,  9  Quid,  quod  pluribus  locis  quasi  denuntiant,  ut 
neque  sensuum  fidem  sine  ratione  nee  rationis  sine  sensibus  exqui- 
ramus,  where  the  negatives  spend  their  force  entirely  upon  the 
phrases  sensuum  fidem  sine  raiione  and  rationis  sine  sensibus, 
without  any  regard  to  the  mood  of  the  verb ; 

Caes.  B.  G.  7,  75  ne  tanta  multitudine  confusa  nee  moderari  nee 
discernere  suos  nee  frumentandi  rationem  habere  possent,  where 
the  negatives  connect  the  infinitives,  without  any  regard  to  the 
subjunctive.^ 

No  objection  to  this  interpretation  can  be  found  in  the  fact  that 
neve  (neu)  is  frequently  used  in  volitive  clauses  even  to  negative 
single  words  and  phrases,  e.  g.  Cic.  de  legibus  2,  27,  67  .  .  .  earn 
ne  quis  nobis  minuat  neve  vivos  neve  mortuos;  id.  ad  fam.  1,9,  19 
,  .  .  peto  a  te,  ut  id  a  me  neve  in  hoc  neve  in  aliis  requiras. 
There  is,  in  the  first  place,  a  wide  difference  between  such  clauses 
as  these  last  and  the  others.     In  these  last  the  acts  {earn  .  .  . 

1  The  negatives  in  the  following  clauses  from  Early  Latin  may  be  similarly 
explained,  though  they  seem  to  be  extreme  cases :  C.  I.  L.  I  196,  10  Magister 
ne</ue  vir  neque  mulier  quisquam  eset ;  Plaut.  Asin.  854  Neque  divini  neque  mi 
humani  posthac  quicquam  adcreduas,  Artemona,  si  huius  rei  me  mendacem 
esse  inveneris ;  and  perhaps  Capt.  605  (though  this  may  be  explained  differ- 
ently, as  will  appear  later)  Neque  pol  me  insanum,  Hegio,  esse  creduis  neque 
fuisse  umquam  neque  esse  morbum,  quem  istic  autumat,  i.  e.  'depend  upon  it,  I 
am  not  crazy,  nor  have  I  ever  had  the  disease,'  etc. 


36 

minuat  and  id .  .  .  requiras)  are  absolutely  negatived — they  are 
not  to  occur  under  any  conceivable  circumstances.  In  the  other 
passages  the  act  in  each  case  is  to  take  place,  but  with  certain 
exceptions  and  restrictions,  and  it  is  these  exceptions  and  restric- 
tions that  are  introduced  by  the  negative  in  neque  (nee).  In  each 
case  the  negative  has  to  do  only  with  its  own  particular  word,  or 
phrase,  and  is  not  affected  by  the  character  of  the  clause  as  a 
whole.  When,  however,  the  feeling  of  negative  volition  extends 
over  the  whole  clause  and  everything  in  it,  and  all  the  negatives 
partake  of  the  volitive  coloring,  we  have  neve  (neu). 

There  now  remain,  as  supposed  instances  of  7ieque  {nee)  in 
volitive  clauses,  only  the  following  passages,  all  of  which  have, 
in  my  opinion,  been  misinterpreted:  Cic.  de  re  pub.  i,  2,  3  Et 
quoniam  maxime  rapimur  ad  opes  augendas  generis  humani 
studemusque  nostris  consiliis  et  laboribus  tutiorem  et  opulen- 
tiorem  vitam  hominum  reddere  .  .  .  teneamus  eum  cursum,  qui 
semper  fuit  optimi  cuiusque,  neque  ea  signa  audiamus,  quae 
receptui  canunt,  ut  eos  etiam  revocent,  qui  iam  processerint ; 
Sail.  Jug.  85,  47  Quam  ob  rem  vos,  quibus  militaris  aetas  est, 
adnitimini  mecum  et  capessite  rem  publicam  :  neque  quemquam 
ex  calamitate  aliorum  aut  imperatorum  superbia  metus  ceperit; 
Cic.  de  off.  I,  26,  92  Quae  primum  bene  parta  sit  nullo  neque 
turpi  quaestu  neque  odioso,  deinde  augeatur  ratione,  diligentia, 
parsimonia,  tum  quam  plurimis,  modo  dignis,  se  utilem  praebeat, 
nee  lubidini  potius  luxuriaeque  quam  liberalitati  et  beneficentiae 
pareat,  though  perhaps  here  the  negative  in  nee  should  be  looked 
upon  as  negativing  merely  the  idea  of  lubidini  and  luxuriae,  as 
opposed  to  liber aliiati  and  beneficentiae.  The  misinterpretation, 
as  I  conceive  it,  of  these  passages  has  been  due  primarily  to  the 
failure  to  recognize  the  extent  to  which  a  certain  class  of  subjunc- 
tives is  used  in  Latin,  and  this  failure,  in  turn,  may  be  due,  in 
part  at  least,  to  a  wrong  theory  regarding  the  origin  of  this 
particular  usage.  I  refer  to  that  use  of  the  subjunctive  which 
deals  with  expressions  of  obligation  and  propriety.  Such  a  use 
of  the  subjunctive  is  hardly  recognized  at  all  by  grammarians, 
except  in  certain  questions  like,  e.  g.,  cur  ego  non  laeier?  and 
in  certain  subordinate  clauses  like,  e.  g..  Nihil  est  cur  tibi  vera 
non  dicat.  In  such  clauses  the  meaning  of  obligation,  or  pro- 
priety, must  of  course  be  recognized  by  all ;  and  such  clauses 
have  been  regarded  as  traceable  to  a  volitive  origin.  Such 
questions  as  cur  ego  no7i  laeter  f  are  looked  upon  as  intimately 


37 

connected  with  the  deliberative  subjunctive,  and  are  put  into  the 
same  category  as  quid  agamf  ('what  shall  I  do?').  Any  one 
may  see  the  results  of  such  a  treatment  by  examining  Kiihner's 
Ausfiihrl.  Grammatik  der  lateinischen  Sprache,  Bd.  II,  §47,  2  b 
(p.  137).  Here  are  gathered  together  numerous  questions  in  the 
present  subjunctive,  all  professing  to  illustrate  the  deliberative 
question  as  a  subdivision  of  the  volitive  subjunctive;  but  the 
surprising  thing  to  my  mind  is  that  questions  with  ne  and 
questions  with  non  are  given  side  by  side  as  illustrations  of  the 
same  construction,  apparently  without  the  least  consciousness  that 
there  is  any  difference  in  meaning  between  the  two.  I  wish  to 
protest  against  the  practice  of  associating  together  such  questions 
as  quid  agam,  indices  f  (Cic.  Verr.  5,  i,  2),  Ne  doleam?  (Cic.  ad 
Att.  12,  40,  2),  on  the  one  hand,  and  cur  ego  non  laeter?  (Cic. 
Catil.  4,1,2)  and  hunc  ego  non  diligam  ?  Non  admirer  ?  (Cic. 
Arch.  8,  18),  on  the  other.  It  seems  to  me  that  all  the  evidence 
points  to  their  belonging  to  entirely  distinct  uses  of  the  subjunc- 
tive mood.  The  questions  of  the  first  class  deal  with  the  will. 
When  a  man  says  quid  agam  9  ('  what  shall  I  do?')  he  is  asking 
himself  or  some  one  else  for  directions.  The  answer  will  be  an 
expression  of  the  will:  'Do  so  and  so.'  Similarly,  the  question 
ne  doleam  f  anticipates  from  some  source  or  other  a  prohibition 
•I  am  not  to  grieve?  (are  those  your  commands?).'  But  the 
questions  of  the  other  set  are  very  far  removed  from  any  such 
meaning.  Cur  ego  non  laeter?  means  'why  should  I  not  be 
glad?'  and  the  answer,  so  far  as  any  is  expected,  will  be  'you 
should  not  (ought  not  to)  be  glad  for  the  following  reasons,'  etc., 
or  '  you  should  (ought  to)  be  glad,'  or  the  like.  Similarly,  Kunc 
ego  non  diligam  9  means  '  should  I  not  (ought  I  not  to)  love  this 
man  ? '  ^  The  will  in  this  last  case  is  not  involved  in  the  slightest 
degree.  There  is,  accordingly,  no  idea  of  deliberation  in  the 
question.  Cicero's  mind  had  been  made  up  long  before,  and 
hunc  ego  non  diligam  9  is  merely  a  rhetorical  way  of  saying 
"surely  I  ought  to  love  such  a  man  as  this."  I  can  find  no 
instance  in  Latin  literature  of  non  introducing  a  question  which 
is  truly  deliberative  in  character.  Where  that  negative  is  used 
in  questions  which  grammarians  have  been  pleased  to  call  delib- 

^  The  only  explanation  of  non  that  will  prove  satisfactory  for  all  the  instances 
concerned  is  one  that  regards  it  as  parallel  in  every  way  with  the  non  in  cur 
non  laeter?  This  interpretation  may  seem  more  acceptable  later  on  in  this 
paper. 


38 

erative,  the  context  shows  that  the  question  either  is  settled 
already,  and  so  is  purely  rhetorical  in  character  and  equivalent 
to  a  negative  assertion  of  obligation,  or  propriety,  or  possibility  ; 
or  else  asks  for  information,  anticipating  in  reply  an  assertion  of 
obligation,  or  propriety,  or  possibility.  It  never  asks  for  advice, 
or  direction — it  never  anticipates  in  reply  an  expression  of  the 
will  in  any  form.  In  other  words,  it  is  never  deliberative.  We 
should  therefore  never  expect  to  find  ne  as  a  negative  in  such 
questions,  nor  in  the  answers  to  such  questions,  and  we  never  do 
find  it.  And  here  I  wish  to  call  attention  to  a  strange  error  of 
which  Kiihner  has  been  guilty.  In  §47,  2  (pp.  136-7)  of  his 
Latin  grammar,  in  speaking  of  questions  of  deliberation,  he  says: 
"Die  Negation  ist  ne'^  He  then  proceeds  to  give  a  list  containing 
ten  negative  questions,  all  of  which  he  calls  deliberative  and  eight 
of  which  are  negatived  by  non.  The  two  which  are  negatived  by 
ne  (both  found  in  the  same  passage,  Att.  12,  40,  2)  are  not  inde- 
pendent questions  at  all ;  they  depend  upon  the  vetb  of  demand- 
ing that  has  preceded.  The  truth  is  that  the  negative  type  of  the 
deliberative  question,  corresponding  to  the  Greek  deliberative 
subjunctive  with  ^r],  is  not  found  in  the  Latin  language.  The 
Latin  confines  its  deliberative  questions  to  positives ;  the  Greek 
frequently  gives  them  a  negative  form ;  we  in  English  sometimes 
combine  the  two  forms,  e.  g.  'Shall  I  go,  or  shall  I  not?' 

While  it  is  true  that  non  never  occurs  in  deliberative  questions, 
as  a  negative  of  the  subjunctive,  it  is  equally  true  that  ne  never 
occurs  in  expressions  of  obligation,  or  propriety.  The  following 
passages  may  be  referred  to  as  illustrations  of  negative  questions 
of  obligation,  or  propriety:  Plant.  Most.  2,  2,  24;  id.  Trin.  133; 
Ter.  Hec.  342;  And.  103;  id.  384;  Cic.  Vat.  2,  4;  Arch.  8,  19; 
Catil.  4,  I,  2;  ad  fam.  10,  23,  15;  Plane.  7,  18.  Many  others  will 
be  found  by  consulting  Merguet's  Lexikon  zu  Cicero.  But,  some 
one  will  say,  these  questions  are  at  least  developments  from  the 
deliberative  question,  and  so  go  back  ultimately  to  a  volitive 
origin.  Of  this  there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence.  The  only 
thing  that  can  be  said,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  in  favor  of  such  a 
theory  is  that  one  can  conceive  how  such  a  transition  might 
have  taken  place.^ 

^  It  is  barely  possible  that  some  one  might  cite  the  following  passages  in 
support  of  such  a  view,  inasmuch  as  they  are  commonly  translated  by  the  use 
of  'should,'  while  having  ne  as  a  negative :  Cic.  ad  Att.  2,  i,  3  ...  isdem  ex 
libris  perspicies  et  quae  gesserim  et  quae  dixerim :  aut  ne  poposcisses ;  ego 


39 

It  seems  to  me  that  we  must  regard  this  use  of  the  subjunctive 
as  connected  with  the  subjunctive  used  to  express  the  'would' 
idea  (commonly  designated  in  the  grammars  as  the  'potential'). 
The  two  expressions  'no  one  would  think'  and  'no  one  should 
think'  do  not  lie  so  far  apart  that  one  conception  could  not 
readily  pass  into  the  other.  In  fact,  it  frequently  happens  that 
one  hesitates  whether  to  use  'would'  or  'should'  in  translating  a 
subjunctive.  Such  a  case  is  found  in  Tac.  Ann.  3,  50  Studia  illi, 
ut  plena  vaecordiae,  ita  inania  et  fluxa  sunt;  nee  quicquam  grave 
ac  serium  ex  eo  metuas,  qui  suorum  ipse  flagitiorum  proditor  non 
virorum  animis  sed  muhercularum  adrepit.  In  translating  this 
passage  there  is  really  no  choice  between  'nor  would  you  appre- 
hend anything'  and  'nor  should  you,'  etc.  That  the  two  ideas 
are  practically  equivalent  for  certain  purposes  is  shown  by  the 
fact  they  are  sometimes  expressed  by  the  same  word  in  our  own 
language ;  and  it  is  shown  by  similar  phenomena  in  at  least  one 
other  language  besides  Latin.  Our  word  'should'  may,  under 
certain  circumstances,  express  obligation  or  propriety,  or  may 
represent  the  conclusion  of  a  condition  corresponding  to  a  less 
vivid  future  condition  in  Latin.  The  sentence  'I  should  attack 
the  enemy,  if  my  commander  should  give  the  order,'  may  mean 
'I  ought  to  attack  them'  under  those  circumstances,  or  it  may 
mean  merely  that  the  act  would  occur  under  those  circumstances. 
Such  a  transition  of  thought  may  also  be  paralleled   from  the 

enim  tibi  me  non  offerebam ;  id.  Verr.  2,  3,  84, 195  .  .  .  sin,  ut  plerique  faciunt, 
in  quo  erat  aliqui  quaestus,  sed  is  honestus  atque  concessus,  frumentum, 
quoniam  villus  erat,  ne  emisses,  sumpsisses  id  nummorum,  quod  tibi  senatus 
celiac  nomine  concesserat.  But  these  passages  do  not  support  any  such 
theory.  In  the  first  place,  one  must  look  upon  ne  poposcisses  and  ne  emisses 
with  suspicion.  No  other  instance  of  such  a  use  can,  I  believe,  be  found — 
at  least  before  the  period  of  Silver  Latinity;  and  the  manuscript  evidence  in 
at  least  one  of  these  passages  is  somewhat  shaky.  At  any  rate,  no  argument 
as  to  the  origin  of  a  construction  can  be  based  upon  one  or  two  curiosities  of 
comparatively  late  times.  If  these  two  instances  are  to  stand,  they  must  be 
looked  upon  as  purely  volitive  in  character.  Ne  poposcisses  and  ne  emisses  are 
simply  ne poposceris  and  ne  emeris  from  a  past  point  of  view — they  are  prohi- 
bitions conceived  of  in  the  past.  Any  one  who  would  insist  upon  'you  should 
not  have  bought'  as  an  accurate  translation  of  ne  emisses  would,  to  be  con- 
sistent, have  to  admit  'you  should  not  (ought  not  to)  buy'  as  an  accurate 
translation  of  ne  emeris.  When  ne  emisses  is  translated  by  'you  should  not 
have  bought,'  'should  not'  must  be  understood  as  merely  the  past  of  'you 
shall  not,'  which,  despite  the  original  meaning  of  'shall,'  contains  no  idea  of 
obligation,  but  is  merely  the  expression  of  the  speaker's  will. 


40 

^Greek  in  the  use  of  the  so-called  potential  optative.  While 
such  expressions  as  ovk  av  .  .  .  dyopevois  start  with  the  idea  'you 
would  not  talk,'  this  has  in  Horn.  II.  2,  250,  and  elsewhere,  come 
to  mean  'you  should  not  talk.'  See  Goodwin's  Moods  and 
Tenses,  §237.  Another  proof  that  the  two  ideas  are  readily 
exchangeable  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  place  of  a  Greek 
potential  optative  with  av,  in  the  conclusion  of  a  condition,  is 
sometimes  taken  by  xpv  with  the  inf.  and  equivalent  expressions 
(Goodwin's  Moods  and  Tenses,  §§502,  555).  This  is  a  clear 
recognition  of  the  practical  equivalence  in  such  cases  of  the 
potential  idea  ('would  think')  and  the  idea  of  obligation  and 
propriety.  It  seems  at  least  as  natural,  then,  to  associate 
together  these  two  uses  of  the  subjunctive  as  it  does  to  associate 
the  use  under  discussion  with  a  volitive  idea.  But  I  do  not  care 
to  press  further  this  theory.  Let  the  reader  still  cling,  if  he  will, 
to  the  theory  of  a  volitive  origin.  In  one  point  we  must  still 
agree,  and  that  is  that  the  negative  in  clauses  of  obligation  and 
propriety  is,  from  the  earliest  times  to  the  latest,  invariably  non, 
and  not  once  ne. 

This  subjunctive  of  obligation  or  propriety  is  the  use  I  referred 
to  above  as  not  having  received  the  recognition  it  deserves. 
What  good  reason  is  there  for  limiting  such  a  use  of  the  subjunc- 
tive to  certain  forms  of  questions  and  subordinate  clauses,  when  it 
would  suit  many  other  clauses  far  better  than  the  common  inter- 
pretation ?  Is  it  not,  when  one  stops  to  think  of  it,  a  little  strange 
that  grammarians  and  editors,  without  a  moment's  hesitation, 
translate  such  questions  as  cur  non  audiamus  f  as  meaning  '  why 
should  we  not  hear  ? '  and  then  apparently  regard  it  as  impossible 
that  non  audiamus ^  without  the  cur,  can  mean  'we  should  not 
hear'?  In  the  question  with  cur  the  negative  is,  without  excep- 
tion, from  the  earliest  times  7ion — never  ne — and  still,  when 
exactly  the  same  thing  is  found  in  a  declarative  form,  gram- 
marians (e.  g.  Kiihner,  II,  p.  145)  and  commentators  proceed  to 
work  out  some  ingenious  theory  to  show  how  non  came  to  be 
used  where  ne  would  have  been  expected. 

If  those  who  are  interested  in  this  question  will  only  get  rid  of 
the  idea  that  the  subjunctive  in  clauses  of  obligation  or  propriety 
must  in  some  way  be  associated  with  the  volitive  subjunctive,  and 
will  then  recognize  this  use  as  having  somewhat  freer  scope  than 
they  have  been  accustomed  to  suppose,  they  will  find  that  many 
difficulties  will  be  at  once  disposed  of.     They  will,  in  the  first 


41 

place,  be  relieved  of  the  necessity  of  explaining  why  those  few 
clauses  which  they  are  willing  to  call  clauses  of  obligation  have 
non  instead  oine.  But  this  will  be  only  a  beginning  of  the  satis- 
faction that  their  new  belief  will  bring  them.  The  passages  from 
Cicero  and  Sallust  which  prompted  these  remarks  will  then  be 
perfectly  clear  and  their  negatives  perfectly  regular.  The  one 
from  the  de  re  pub.:  teneamus  eum  cursum,  qui  semper  fuit 
optimi  cuiusque;  neque  ea  signa  audiamus  quae  etc.,  will  then 
mean  'we  should  keep  to  that  course  which  has  always  been 
that  of  all  good  men,  and  should  not  heed  the  signals  which,'  etc.^ 
The  neque  quemquam  meius  ceperit  in  Sallust  will  mean  'nor 
should  any  one  fear.'  Many  other  difficulties  will  cease  to  be 
difficulties.  In  Cic.  pro  Cluent.  57,  155  Quoniam  omnia  com- 
moda  nostra,  iura,  libertatem,  salutem  denique  legibus  obtinemus, 
a  legibus  non  recedamus,  the  no7i  recedamus  will  mean  '  we  should 
not  recede.'  The  negatives  in  the  following  passages  may  be 
similarly  explained :  Cic.  de  re  pub.  4,  6,  6  Nee  vero  mulieribus 
^YdiQiQcins praeponatur  .  .  .,  sed  sit  censor,  qui  viros  doceat  mode- 
rari  uxoribus;  id.  ad  Att.  14,  13  A  Patere,  obsecro,  te  pro  re 
publica  videri  gessisse  simultatem  cum  patre  eius:  non  contem- 
peris  hanc  familiam ;  honestius  enim  et  libentius  deponimus 
inimicitias  rei  publicae  nomine  susceptas  quam  contumaciae. 

The  choice  of  non  instead  of  7ie  will  now  be  clearly  understood 
in  such  passages  as  the  following  :  Ter.  And.  787  Hie  est  ille :  7ion 
te  credas  Davom  ludere;  Plant.  Trin.  133  Non  ego  illi  argentum 
redderem?  Cic.  Arch.  8,  18  Hunc  ego  non  diligam?  Non 
admirer?  Non  omni  ratione  defendendum  piitem?  id.  19  Nos 
.  .  .  7ion  poetarum  voce  moveamur  9  ad  fam.  14,  4,  5  Quid  nunc 
rogem  te,  ut  venias,  mulierem  aegram  et  corpore  et  animo  con- 
fectam  ?  Non  rogem  ?  Sine  te  igitur  sim  ?  We  noticed  earlier 
in  this  paper  that  neque  (nee)  is  not  found  in  Early  Latin  in 
clauses  that  are  stamped  as  volitive  in  character  by  the  use  of  an 

^  The  whole  context  is  distinctly  in  favor  of  taking  audiamus  in  this  sense. 
There  is  no  instance  of  any  such  hortatory  expression  previous  to  this  in  the 
production,  nor  on  the  pages  following.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are,  in  the 
ten  lines  next  preceding,  repeated  expressions  of  obligation  denoting  what 
'  we  ought  to  do,'  e.  g.  Ergo  ille  civis  .  .  .  ipsis  est  praeferendus  doctoribus ; 
quae  est  enim  istorum  oratio  tarn  equisita  quae  sit  anteponenda  bene  consti- 
tutae  civitati  publico  iure  et  moribus?  Equidem  quem  ad  modum  urbis 
magnas  viculis  et  castellis  praeferendas  puto,  sic  eos,  qui  his  urbibus  consilio 
atque  auctoritate  praesunt,  iis,  qui  omnis  negoti  publici  expertes  sunt,  longe 
duco  sapientia  ipsa  esse  anieponendos. 


42 

imperative  or  by  the  use  of  an  accompanying  ne  or  neve.  In  the 
face  of  such  a  condition  of  things,  one  must  feel  great  hesitation 
in  supposing  neque  {nee)  to  be  used  in  any  voJitive  clause  during 
that  period.  And  still,  what  is  to  be  done  with  the  following? 
Plant.  Bacch.  476  Ipsus  neque  amat,  nee  tu  credas ;  id.  Capt.  149 
Ah,  Hegio,  numquam  istuc  dixis  neque  animum  induxis  tuom  ; 
id.  Trin.  627  Noli  avorsari  neque  te  occultassis  mihi  (This  is  the 
only  passage  in  which  a  clear  prohibition  of  any  sort  precedes. 
It  does  not  count  for  much  against  the  mass  of  evidence  bearing 
in  the  other  direction,  and  it  is  not  necessary  here  to  regard 
neque  occultassis  as  a  prohibition) ;  Enn.  Ann.  143  (Baehrens) 
Nee  mi  aurum  posco  nee  mi  pretium  dederitis ;  id.  509  Nemo  me 
dacrumis  decoret  nee  funera  fleta  faxit;  Lucil.  Sat.  30  (Baehrens 
775)  neque  barbam  inmiseris ;  Ter.  And.  392  Nee  tu  ea  causa 
minueris  haec  quae  facis.  The  explanation  I  have  suggested 
clears  up  all  of  these  passages.  The  failure  to  recognize  the 
use  of  the  subjunctive  for  which  I  am  pleading  has  repeatedly 
resulted  in  the  corruption  of  manuscripts  by  scholars  who  could 
not  understand  the  negative  they  found  there.  No  less  distin- 
guished scholars  than  Riese  and  Schmalz  are  among  those  to 
whom  I  allude.  In  his  admirable  edition  of  Catullus,  Riese 
(followed  by  Schmalz,  Lat.  Synt.,  §31)  changes  non  siris  to  ne 
siris  in  Catul.  66,  91  Tu  vero,  regina,  tuens  cum  sidera  divam 
Placabis  festis  luminibus  Venerem,  Unguinis  expertem  non  siris 
esse  tuam  me,  sed  potius  largis  adfice  muneribus.  I  am  con- 
vinced that  there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  of  any  kind  for 
this  reading.  The  manuscripts,  without  exception,  read  non. 
Ne  with  the  perfect  subjunctive  is  a  construction  unknown  to 
Catullus.  More  than  that,  it  is  a  construction  not  found  in  any 
poet,  except  4  times  in  Horace,  from  the  time  of  Terence  till  after 
the  Augustan  Age  (and  it  is  rare  even  then),  while  the  construc- 
tion involved  in  my  interpretation  of  the  passage  is  found  in  every 
prominent  poet  of  the  Golden  Age.  I  showed,  too,  in  Part  I  of 
this  paper,  that  ne  with  the  perfect  is  not  used  in  dignified  address 
until  Silver  Latin.  This  is  true  even  in  Horace,  the  only  poet 
who  uses  the  construction  at  all.  But  the  passage  in  Catullus  is 
addressed  to  a  queen  {regina  Bere7iice,  daughter  of  Ptolemy 
Philadelphus),  and  such  a  harsh  and  abrupt  address  would  not 
be  in  harmony  with  the  mock-heroic  style  of  the  poem.^     Similar 

^My  interpretation  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  remark  of  Quintilian  in 
I.  5.  50.  of  which  so  much  has  been  made  by  those  who  read  ne  siris.  See  my 
Appendix. 


43 

corruptions  have  taken  place  for  similar  reasons  in  Rutil.  Lup. 
II  9  non  credideris;  Sen.  Nat.  Qu.  i,  3  non  dubitaveris ;  Nepos, 
Ages.  4,  I  quare  veniret  non  dubitaret.  On  the  reading  in  these 
passages  cf.  Reisig-Haase,  Lat.  Synt.,  neu  bearbeitet  von  Schmalz 
und  Landgraf,  p.  481.  Manuscripts  only  too  often  need  to  be 
delivered  from  their  friends. 

We  are  now  ready  to  return  to  the  passages  in  Cicero  that  have 
prompted  all  of  these  remarks.  My  explanation  of  nee  with  the 
perfect  subjunctive  in  those  passages  has,  I  presume,  already  been 
surmised.  They  seem  to  me  instances  of  that  particular  phase  of 
the  so-called  (unfortunately^)  potential  subjunctive  which  is  com- 
monly translated  by  the  use  of  the  auxiliary  'would/  or,  in  the 
first  person,  'should.'  In  applying  this  test  to  the  various 
instances,  one  must  keep  in  mind  that  this  idea  sometimes 
approaches  that  of  obligation  or  propriety,  and  that  in  such  cases 
one  need  not  hesitate,  in  translating,  to  use  the  auxiliary  'should  * 
instead  of  'would.'  The  subjunctive  in  Acad.  2,  46,  141  Tarn 
moveor  quam  tu,  Luculle,  nee  me  minus  hominem  quam  te 
puiaveris,  is  then  to  be  translated  'nor  would  you  (should 
you)  for  a  moment  think  that  I,'  etc.  Such  a  translation  makes 
equally  good  sense  in  all  the  other  passages  in  question.  It  is 
open,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  to  no  objection  of  any  kind.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  receives  a  striking  confirmation  at  the  hands  of 
Cicero  himself.  I  refer  to  Cic.  Tusc.  Disp.  i,  41,  98  Ne  vos 
quidem,  iudices,  mortem  timueritis.  Grammars  (e.  g.  Roby, 
1602;  Draeger,  Hist.  Synt.,  §149  B;  Kiihner,  Ausf.  Lat.  Gram. 
II,  §47,  9,  p.  143)  are  wont  to  classify  this  as  a  prohibition, 
instead  of  taking  ne  and  quidem  together  in  the  sense  of  'not 
even.'  This  would  be  in  conflict  with  two  principles  I  laid  down 
in  Part  I  of  my  paper:  (i)  that  the  perfect  subjunctive  is  not 
used  in  prohibitions  addressed  to  iudiees,  or  in  other  dignified 
prohibitions,  and  (2)  that  it  is  not,  except  in  two  or  three 
passages,  used  with  verbs  denoting  mere  mental  activity,  before 
the  period  of  decline.  On  these  grounds  alone  I  should  reject 
the  interpretation  referred  to  above.  But,  fortunately,  I  am  not 
in  the  present  instance  obliged  to  trust  to  such  deductions.  The 
whole   passage   in    Cicero  is  a  close   translation  of  chapters   32 

^  The  term  'potential'  ought,  it  seems  to  me,  to  be  limited  to  expressions  of 
ability  and  possibility — to  the  'can'  and  the  'may'  ideas.  I  see  nothing  in 
the  term  'potential'  that  makes  it  appropriate  for  designating  any  other 
construction. 


44 

and  33  of  Plato's  Apolog^ia  Socratis.  The  part  of  which  the 
particular  sentence  concerned  is  a  translation  runs  as  follows: 
'AXXa  Kiti  vfiag  XPV^  ^  audpes  diKaaTai,  eveXnidas  eii/ai  npos  rov  Bdvarov. 
The  perfect  subjunctive  is,  then,  here  equivalent  to  xph  with  the 
infinitive.  This,  taken  in  connection  with  the  use,  above  referred 
to,  of  xpn  ^^^  the  infinitive  for  the  potential  optative  in  conclusions 
of  conditions,  seems  to  me  to  prove  beyond  all  possible  doubt 
that  no7i  timueriiis  may,  without  the  least  hesitation,  be  translated 
by  'you  should  not  fear,'  nee putaveris  by  '  nor  should  you  think,' 
etc.,  etc.,  wherever  'should'  seems  to  make  a  better  translation 
than  'would.' 

I  have  called  attention  above  to  the  fact  that  the  predominance, 
in  the  construction  of  nee  with  the  perfect  subjunctive,  of  verbs 
denoting  mere  mental  activity  proves  that  the  construction  cannot 
be  the  same  as  that  formed  by  ne  with  the  perfect.  But  the 
classes  of  verbs  found  in  this  construction  form  as  strong  an 
argument  in  favor  of  my  interpretation  as  they  form  against  the 
common  interpretation.  It  will  be  noticed  that  of  the  lo  verbs 
in  this  construction  in  Cicero,  8  are  verbs  of  mental  action  or  of 
saying.  By  referring  to  the  sections  on  the  potential  subjunctive 
and  the  subjunctive  of  modest  assertion  in  any  of  our  Latin 
grammars,  it  will  be  found  that  in  a  similarly  large  majority  of 
the  examples  there  given  the  verbs  belong  to  one  or  the  other 
of  these  two  classes.  Roby  calls  attention  to  the  striking  pre- 
dominance of  such  verbs  in  the  potential  mood  (the  term  '  poten- 
tial' being  employed  to  include  such  uses  as  nemo  putet  'no  one 
would  think'),  and  especially  when  the  perfect  tense  is  used,  in 
his  Latin  Grammar,  §1536  (cf.  also  Kuhner,  II,  §46,  p.  133).  In 
§§1536-46  he  gives  a  large  number  of  instances  of  the  perfect 
subjunctive  in  the  ist  person  and  an  equally  large  number  in  the 
3d  person,  accompanied  in  both  persons  by  negatives,  and  all 
explained  as  instances  of  the  so-called  potential  (to  be  translated 
by  'would'  or,  in  the  ist  person,  by  'should').  But  instances  of 
the  2d  person,  accompanied  by  a  negative,  exactly  similar  in 
everything  other  than  in  the  person  and  showing  the  same 
striking  predominance  of  verbs  of  the  same  sort,  Roby,  like  all 
the  rest,  classifies  with  the  perfect  subjunctive,  under  the  sections 
on  prohibitions  (v.  §1602).  The  only  exception  I  find  is  nee 
laudaveris  (Cic.  Leg.  3,  i),  out  of  which,  fortunately,  no  one 
could  possibly  make  a  prohibition.  Why  such  a  dearth  of  these 
perfects  in  the  2d  person,  when  they  are  so  very  common  in  the 


45 

ist  and  3d  persons?     The  truth  seems  to  be  that  they  are  plen- 
tiful enough,  if  we  will  only  recognize  them  when  we  see  them. 

I  hope  it  will  be  admitted  that  I  have  made  good  my  claim  that 
neque  (nee)  is  never  found  in  Ciceronian  prose  with  a  volitive 
subjunctive.  If  any  one  still  clings  to  the  belief  that  some  of  the 
clauses  I  have  just  been  considering  are  volitive,  then  I  would 
remind  him  again  of  the  fact,  an  all-important  one  in  this 
connection  that,  among  all  the  clauses  introduced  by  ne  or  neve 
and  continued  by  the  addition  of  a  second  verb  (and  there  are, 
literally,  hundreds  of  such  clauses),  neque  (nee)  is,  with  but  a 
single  exception  in  a  second-rate  writer,  unknown  to  prose  as  a 
connective,  and  extremely  rare  in  poetry,  before  the  time  of  Livy. 
There  are  so  many  such  clauses  that  this  omission  cannot  be 
accounted  for  as  a  matter  of  chance.  Until  some  one  can  explain 
the  absence  of  neque  {nee)  from  all  the  various  clauses,  dependent 
and  independent,  which  alone  are  known  to  be  volitive  in  feeling, 
we  certainly  have  a  right  to  insist  that  he  shall  exhaust  all  other 
possible  explanations  before  ever  recognizing  neque  as  used  with 
a  volitive  subjunctive  in  Ciceronian  prose. 

A  word  should  now  be  said  regarding  the  use  of  nihil  (nil), 
numquam,  ne — quidem,  and  ?iullus  with  the  perfect  subjunctive. 
They  occur  as  follows  : 

Nihil  (nil)  :  Plant.  Mil.  1007  Hercle  banc  quidem  nil  tu 
amassis;  mihi  desponsast;  Rud.  11 35  tu  mihi  nihilum  ostenderis; 
Cure.  384  Nil  tu  me  saturum  mo7iueris.  Memini  et  scio ;  Ps.  232 
Nil  curassis:  liquido's  animo :  ego  pro  me  et  pro  te  curabo; 
Most.  511  Nil  me  curassis:  ego  mihi  providero ;  Cic.  in  Verr.  2, 
I,  54,  141  nihil dh  isto  vafrum,  «z^z7  veteratorium  exspectaveritis ; 
pro  Mur.  31,  65  ''Nihil  ignoverisy  Immo  aliquid,  non  omnia. 
'' Nihil  ovcixAno  gratiae  concesseris.''  Immo  insistito,  cum  officium 
et  fides  postulabit ;  ad  Att.  2,  9  7iihil  me  existimaris  neque  usu 
neque  a  Theophrasto  didicisse;  ib.  4,  17  (18),  4  De  me  7iihil 
timueris,  sed  tamen  promitto  nihil ;  ib.  5,  11  Tu  velim  Piliam 
meis  verbis  consolere;  indicabo  enim  tibi ;  tu  illi  nihil  dixeris ; 
accepi  fasciculum,  in  quo  erat  epistola  Piliae;  ib.  5,  21  A  Quinto 
fratre  his  mensibus  nihil  exspectaris ;  nam  Taurus  propter  nivis 
ante  mensem  lunium  transiri  non  potest ;  ib.  7,  8,  2  animadver- 
teram  posse  pro  re  nata  te  non  incommode  ad  me  in  Albanum 
venire  III.  Nonas  lanuar.;  sed,  amabo  te,  nihil  incommodo  vale- 
tudinisy'^^^m;  quid  enim  est  tantum  in  uno  aut  altero  die?  ib.  8, 


46 

2  Nihil  arbitror  fore,  quod  reprehendas.  Si  qua  erunt,  doce  me, 
quo  modo  effugere  possim.  ''NihiV  inquies  **  omnino  scripseris  "/ 
ad  Quintum  i,  1,4,  14  sed  si  quis  est,  in  quo  iam  offenderis,  de 
quo  aliquid  senseris,  huic  nihil  credideris,  nullam  partem  existi- 
mationis  tuae  commiseris ; 

NuMQUAM  :  Plaut.  Capt.  149  Ego  alienus  ?  Alienus  ille  ?  Ah, 
Hegio,  7iumqua7n  istuc  dixis  neque  animum  induxis  tuom ;  Sail. 
Jug.  no,  4  arma  viros  pecuniam,  postremo  quicquid  animo  lubet, 
sume  utere,  et  quoad  vives,  numqvani  tibi  redditam  gratiam 
putaveris  ; 

Ne  .  .  .  QUiDEM,  NULLUS :  Cic.  Tusc.  Disp.  I,  41,  98  Ne  vos 
quidem,  iudices  ii,  qui  me  absolvistis,  mortem  timueritis  (cf.  Tusc. 
Disp.  2,  13,  32  Te  vero  ita  adfectum  ne  virum  quidem  quisquam 
dixerii) ;  Plaut.  Bacch.  90  Ille  quidem  banc  abducet :  nullus  tu 
adfueris,  si  non  lubet ;  Ter.  Hec.  79  Si  quaeret  me,  uti  tum  dicas : 
si  non  quaeret,  nullus  dixeris.  It  is  customary  to  treat  these  as 
prohibitions,  but  it  is  practically  certain  that  some  of  them  are 
not  volitive  in  character.  It  will  be  noticed  that  in  most  of  these 
instances  the  verbs  are  such  as  indicate  mere  mental  activity, 
which  in  itself  practically  decides  the  case  against  interpreting 
them  as  volitive  subjunctives.  Not  only  that,  but  whereas  we 
found  that  ne  with  the  perfect  was  in  classical  times  used  only 
in  familiar,  every-day  address,  and  was  carefully  avoided  on 
dignified  occasions,  in  the  passages  under  discussion  there  are 
repeated  instances  of  the  perfect  subjunctive  on  such  occasions. 
Take,  for  example,  nihil  exspedaveritis  in  Verr.  II  i,  54,  144. 
If  this  were  taken  as  a  prohibition  belonging  to  the  same  class 
as  ne  with  the  perfect,  it  would,  as  shown  in  Part  I  of  this  paper, 
be  abrupt  and  harsh  in  tone,  and  not  at  all  calculated  to  make  a 
favorable  impression  upon  the  iudices  to  whom  it  is  addressed. 
But  under  the  other  interpretation  it  would  be  very  deferential 
and  compHmentary  in  tone.  The  expression  'j^ou  would  (of 
course)  expect  nothing'  implies  full  confidence  in  the  good 
sense  and  judgment  of  the  iudices^  and  would  in  every  way  be 
appropriate  to  the  occasion.  The  passage  from  Cic.  Tusc.  Disp. 
is  shown,  by  the  Greek  passage  of  which  it  is  a  literal  translation, 
to  be  equivalent  to  X9n  with  the  infinitive.  In  the  only  instance, 
then,  where  positive  proof  of  this  nature  is  at  hand,  my  objection 
to  regarding  similar  constructions  as  belonging  to  the  volitive 
subjunctive  is  shown  to  be  well  founded.  There  is,  to  be  sure, 
no  serious  objection  to  interpreting  some  of  these  as  bojia  fide 


47 

prohibitions.  It  is  possible  even  that  some  of  them  are  in  the 
future  perfect  indicative.  There  does  not  seem  to  be  evidence 
enough  at  hand  to  settle  absolutely  each  individual  case. 

« 

Appendix. 

I  ought  perhaps  to  say  a  word  regarding  the  use  of  prohibitive 
expressions  in  Silver  Latin.  It  will  be  noticed  that  I  have  several 
times  referred  to  Livy  as  marking  the  time  when  new  construc- 
tions began  to  appear.  Any  one  who  has  taken  pains  to  examine 
any  work  on  Latin  Style,  treated  historically  (e.  g.  that  of  Schmalz 
in  Miiller's  Handbuch),  must  have  noticed  that  Livy  is  very  dis- 
tinctly an  innovator.  New  constructions,  new  words,  new  phrases, 
new  ways  of  putting  things  fairly  swarm  into  literary  prose  through 
the  pages  of  Livy.  He  may  be  said  in  some  respects  to  mark 
the  beginning  of  the  period  of  decline.  This  must  be  my  excuse 
for  classing  him  here  with  the  writers  of  Silver  Latin.  So  far, 
however,  as  the  usages  I  have  been  considering  are  concerned, 
he  seems  to  depart  from  what  we  have  found  to  be  the  standards 
of  classical  prose  only  in  one  important  particular,  viz.  he  occa- 
sionally uses  neque  {nee)  instead  of  the  classical  neve  (neu)  in 
clauses  introduced  by  ne.  This  use  of  neque  {nee)  occurs  as 
follows :  2,  32,  10  .  .  .  conspirasse  inde  ne  manus  ad  os  cibum 
ferrent,  nee  os  acciperet  datum,  nee  dentes,  quae  conficerent; 
3,  21,  6  dum  ego  ne  imiter  tribunos  nee  me  contra  senatus  con- 
sultum  consulem  renuntiari  patiar ;  4,  4,  11  Cur  non  sancitis,  ne 
vicinus  patricio  sit  plebeius  nee  eodem  itinere  eat^  ne  idem  con- 
vivium  ineat,  ne  in  foro  eodem  consistat  ?  26,  42,  2  .  .  .  periculum 
esse  ratus,  ne  eo  facto  in  unum  omnes  coniraheret,  nee  par  esset 
unus  tot  exercitibus. 

This  use  of  neque  {nee)  in  Livy  in  volitive  clauses  will  perhaps 
cause  greater  uncertainty  than  would  be  felt  in  Ciceronian  times 
regarding  the  correct  explanation  of  certain  other  uses  of  neque 
{nee)  with  the  subjunctive.  It  is,  however,  difficult,  when  one 
compares  the  instances  of  neque  {7iee)  with  the  perfect  subjunctive 
presented  by  Livy  with  the  similar  cases  in  Cicero,  to  resist  the 
conclusion  that  they  are  to  be  interpreted  in  the  same  way.  For 
the  convenience  of  those  who  wish  to  make  a  comparison  with 
earlier  usage,  I  append  a  list  of  the  prohibitive  expressions  found 
in  Livy,  including  these  questionable  instances  oi  neque  (nee). 


48 

Ne  with  Perfect  Subjunctive, 

7,  34,  5  ne  dederis  (addressed  by  a  tribune  to  a  consul  at  a  time 
of  great  emergency);  7,  40,  \2  ne  destiteris  (addressed  in  bitter 
irony  by  the  consul  to  the  leader  of  mutinous  soldiers)  ;  9,  34,  15 
ne  degeneraveris  (uttered  by  a  tribune  in  a  tirade  against  Appius 
Claudius  for  refusing  to  give  up  office  at  the  expiration  of  his 
term) ;  10,  8,  6  ne  fastidieris  (earnest  plea  for  his  rights  which 
had  been  denied);  21,  44,  6  ne  trajisieris  (Hannibal  working  on 
the  passions  of  his  soldiers,  by  quoting  the  arrogant  demands  of 
the  enemy) ;  22,  49,  8  ne  funestiam  hanc  pugnam  morte  consulis 
feceris  (appeal  for  the  life  of  the  consul) ;  30,  30,  \^  ne  tot 
annorum  felicitatem  in  unius  horae  dederis  discrimen  (Hannibal 
to  opposing  general,  Scipio) ;  31,  7  ne  aequaveritis  (not  a  pro- 
hibition, but  a  concession)  Hannibali  Philippum,  ne  Carthagini- 
ensibus  Macedonas.  Pyrrho  certe  aequabitis.  Aequabitis  dico  ? 
Quantum  vel  vir  viro  vel  gens  genti  praestat !  40,  14  ne  misctieris 
(Demetrius,  who  had  been  accused  of  trying  to  murder  his 
brother,  in  tears,  addressing  his  father,  who  is  acting  as  judge). 

Neque  (nee')  with  Perfect  Subjunctive. 

5,  53,  3  nee  id  mirati  sitis  (addressed  to  the  Quirites)  ;  21,  43, 
II  nee  existimaveris  (Hannibal  to  his  soldiers);  23,  3,  3  nee 
quicquam  raptim  aut  forte  temere  egeritis ;  29,  18,  9  neque  in 
Italia  neque  in  Africa  quicquam  gesseritis  (addressed  to  the 
patres  conscripti). 

Numquamy  nusquam  with  Perfect  Subjunctive. 

Livy  I,  32,  7  numquam  siris  (addressed  to  Jupiter);  21,  44,  6 
nusquam  te  moveris. 

Ne  with  Present  Subjunctive. 
44,  22  rumores  credulitate  vestra  ne  alatis  (Weissenborn). 

Neque  {nee)  with  the  Present  Subjunctive. 

22,  39,  21  armatus  intentusque  sis  neque  occasioni  tuae  desis 
neque  occasionem  hosti  des. 

Neque  with  Imperative. 

22,  10,  5  neque  scelus  esto  (probably  =  *  and  it  shall  be  no 
crime,'  the  negative  spending  its  force  upon  scelus). 


49 

Ne  with  Imperative. 
3,  2,  9  «<f  timeie. 

Noli  with  Ivfijiitive, 

7,  24,  6  yiolite  expedare;  7,  40,  16  nolite  ad  versus  vos  velle 
experiri;  10,  8,  5  noli  erubescere ;  32,  21  nolite  fastidire  (twice); 
34,  4  nolite  existimare ;  34,  31  nolite  exigere ;  38,  17  «<?///^  exis- 
timare ;  38,  46  w^/Z/i?  existimare. 

Cave  with  Present  Subjunctive. 

5, 16,  9  cave  sinas;  8,  32,  8  r«z'^  mitt  as  ;  22,  49,  9  ^«z;^  absumas  ; 
30,  14,  II  ^<a^z^^  deformes  et  corrumpas. 

My  statistics  for  Silver  Latin  proper  cover  only  Phaedrus,  the 
tragedies  of  Seneca,  Tacitus  and  the  Declamationes  that  com- 
monly go  under  the  name  of  Quintilian.  They  have,  however, 
been  so  hurriedly  gathered  that  I  will  not  vouch  for  their  com- 
pleteness, though  the  omissions  cannot  be  many.  My  examin- 
ation of  these  authors  leads  me  to  think  it  probable  that  the 
principles  I  have  laid  down  for  classical  times  will,  in  the  main, 
hold  also  for  Silver  Latin,  though,  as  we  should  expect,  in  view 
of  the  general  breaking  up  of  classical  standards,  exceptions  are 
more  common.  Prohibitions  (including,  as  usual,  the  instances 
of  neque  [necj)  occur,  in  the  works  mentioned,  as  follows : 

JVe  with  the  Perfect  Subjunctive. 

Phaedrus:  App.  11  7ie  istud  dixeris  (gymnast  to  a  man  who 
had  questioned  his  strength) ;  26,  5  ne  timueris  (countryman  to  a 
hare). 

Seneca :  none. 

Tacitus:  Ann.  6,  8  ne  patres  conscripti  cogitaveris;  Hist,  i,  16 
ne  territus  fueris  (Galba  to  his  successor  in  office,  familiarly 
grasping  his  hand) ;  2,  77  ne  Mucianum  spreveris  (Mucianus  to 
Vespasian). 

Quintiliani  (?)  Declam.:  none. 

Neque  (nee)  with  Perfect  Subjunctive.  ^..^ 

Phaedrus :  none.  ff 

Seneca :  none. 

Tac.  Hist.  2,47  nee  tempus  computaveritis ;  2,  76  7iec  expaveris. 
Quintiliani  (?)  Declamationes  249  7ieque  negaveris  (three  times)  ; 
257  neque  spectaveris. 


50 

Nihil  with  Perfect  Subjunctive. 
Tacitus:  Ann.  i6,  22  nihil vps^  scripseris. 

Ne  with  Present  Subjunctive, 

Phaedrus  and  Seneca  :  none. 

Tacitus  :  Dial.  17  w<?  dividatis. 

Quintiliani  (?)  Declamationes  306  ne  quid  improbe/^/«j. 

Neque  {nee')  with  Present  Subjunctive. 

Phaedrus,  Seneca,  Quint.  (?)  Declam.:  none. 

Tac.  Ann.  3,  50,  5  nee  metuas;  id.  ib.  6,  8  nee  adseguare. 

Ne  with  Imperative. 

Seneca:  Thyest.  917  7ie  parce ;  984  ne  mettie ;  Phoen.  Frgm. 
495  ne  verere;  556  ne  erue  neve  everte ;  645  ne  ntetue ;  Phaed. 
136  extingue  neve  praebe;  227  ne  ciede ;  1002  ne  metue ;  1249 
ne  metue;  Medea  1024  ne  proper  a. 

Noli  with  Injinitive, 

Phaedrus:  i,  25  nolivereri;  2,  3  noli facere ;  3,  18  noli adfec- 
iare;  4,  7  noli  esse. 

Quintiliani  (?)  Declamationes  247  nolimirari;  315  nolite  dare; 

375  noli  die  ere. 

As  regards  the  use  of  non  in  Silver  Latin,  I  believe  that  it  still 
continued  to  be  carefully  distinguished  from  ne.  It  will  be  found 
that  some  of  the  supposed  instances  of  non  in  the  sense  ofne  may 
be  explained  by  understanding  the  non  to  spend  its  force  upon 
some  particular  word^;  and  that  the  others,  without  exception, 
become  perfectly  clear  if  the  subjunctive  concerned  is  understood 
as  one  denoting  obligation,  or  propriety,  of  which  non  and  negue 
are  the  regular  negatives.  To  this  latter  class  belong,  for  instance. 
Sen.  Q.  N.  I,  3,  3  non  dubitaveris ;  Rutil.  Lup.  II  9  non  credideris; 
Sen.  Ep.  99, 14  non  imperemus ;  Quint.  1,1,5  -^^  assuescat  ergo 
sermoni,  qui  dediscendus  sit;  id.  7,  i,  56  non  desperemus;  etc. 
Even  the  much-cited  passage  in  Ovid :  aut  non  teniaris  aut  perfice, 

*  This  hypothesis  will  also  explain  the  supposed  occurrence  of  non  with  the 
imperative  in  Ovid.  No  other  author,  I  believe,  has  been  suspected  of  such 
barbarism ;  of.  Schmalz,  Lat.  Synt.  37 ;  Ktihner,  AusfUhrl.  Gram.  d.  Lat.  Spr. 
II,  §48.  I. 


51 

may  be  explained  in  the  same  way :  '  you  should  either  not  try  at 
all,  or  else,  if  you  do,  effect  your  object.'  An  unjustified  use  has 
been  made  in  this  connection  of  Quint,  i,  5,  50  qui  tamen  dicat 
pro  illo  ne  feceris  non  feceris,  in  idem  incidat  vitium,  quia  alte- 
rum  negandi  est  alterum  vetandi.  This  passage  has  been  cited 
to  show  that  non  feceris  is  not  good  Latin,  whereas  it  distinctly 
says  that  it  is  good  Latin.  Quintilian  is  merely  trying  to  explain 
the  difference  in  use  between  ne  and  noUy  as  any  one  might  do  in 
a  similar  treatise.  He  does  not  even  imply  that  non  ever  was 
used  in  literature  in  the  sense  of  ne.  All  he  says  is  that  if  a  man 
should  so  use  it  {dicat)^  he  would  make  the  same  mistake^  etc.  It 
is  then  probable  that  aut  non  tentaris  aut perfice  does  not  repre- 
sent an  error  of  a  class  to  which  Quintilian  has  been  supposed  to 
refer,  but  that  it  is  a  perfectly  legitimate  usage.  Still,  inasmuch 
as  neque  {nee)  is  found  with  the  imperative  mood  in  poetry,  and 
inasmuch  as  there  are  undoubted  instances  in  the  prose  of  Silver 
Latin  of  neque  (nee)  in  clauses  of  negative  purpose,  it  must  be 
admitted  that  there  may  be  some  doubt  about  my  interpretation 
of  non  in  some  of  the  clauses  cited  from  this  period.  But  it  seems 
to  me  that,  to  say  the  least,  the  probabilities  are  on  my  side. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED   FOR   FAILURE  TO   RETURN 
THIS   BOOK  ON   THE   DATE   DUE.    THE   PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  50  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH           > 
DAY    AND    TO    $1.00     ON     THE    SEVENTH     DAY 
OVERDUE. 

on    '.i  1939 

LD  21-20m-5,'39  (9269s) 

692541 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


